some of fights going on. -- exaggerating some of the fight's going on. but do you really think that china has any desire for a unified korea? >> absolutely not. >> china was just as opposed to a unified korea as japan. and do you really think the russians are going to stand back, as you said in your talk? .

>> high, and thanks, as always, peter. it is going to make some of us in this room feel old, but 10 years has passed and basically,

the sunshine policy and all that flowed from it, and its successor are going on a decade. a lot of that money appeared to have gone in a black hole. things got done, but at the same time, was political capital, was anything useful, of lasting importance achieved by the south koreans in north korea with that? and similarly, along with if -- with official relationships, i'm thinking mainly of the christian activity, what role do you think the christian movements that are so active in northern china and even into north korea, what role will they play in that society when things changed? >> the great question. i was at a talk that don kirk gave yesterday about how kim dejung craig -- betrayed correk.

first, i think it was fair to say that the summit did not meet anyone's expectations about the piece that was around a corner. i remember a man foster as saying the dmz was shifting from the front line to the front door for trade and cooperation. again, some of this may be looking at south korean politics, is it half empty or half full? i certainly see the harmful side. the very fact that it even exists. i think that these are more ambiguous achievements in terms of cash for the korean regime and a glimpse of four south koreans. it is a positive and tangible

results from the summit. but as the some one who is married to a korean and in whose father died waiting what happened to his family in the north, very much away from -- aware of beeps family separation problem. it is a tragedy that more have not taken place more quickly because they are dying faster than they can arrange meetings. i have to believe that some reunions are better than none, even if they're very controlled. i think there was a sea change in the -- a permanent seat change in south korean attitudes towards north korean. but i think there is a consensus. it was the north korean that was considering closing. there is a consensus that has remained in south korea that there has to be some form of

engagement with north korea, even if it does not meet our expectations. we have to try to engage them. we have to try to promote reconciliation. and if you look at it in crass political terms, in terms of these rumors are now about a summit, i think it will come down to how much money he is willing to give them and how badly he thinks he needs a summit to help his popularity at home. i think those are the two decisive factors. unfortunately, the other summit did not accomplish very much. and i am not sure that another would accomplish very much, other than the fact that talking is better than not talking. to me, the summits are -- certainly, i'm glad that it's happened, but i think they have not achieved what most of us had hoped they would achieve. oh, and the christian movement might you know, now that we have another person -- and the

christian movement, you know, now that we have another person walking across the border behaving in a way that i think is very foolishly, there's no question when i was working on the no. 3 in refugee issue that the underground railroad might not exist if it were not for christian missionaries willing to risk their lives in china to help north koreans get out. my in-laws came from that area and were christians. there's no question of latin christianity, how much of it survived over the last 60, 70 years is hard to say, but i think christian missionaries will play a very important role in a unified korea, judging from the role they are already playing in helping north koreans get out. and they are a critical source of support for north korean defectors in south iraq and in the united states. the roughly 100 north koreans in

the united states are receiving help from corian and non-corian christian churches. -- korean and non-korean christian churches. i think that christians play an important role. >> we will try to squeeze in a few more questions. >> peter, thank you for your kind words. you mentioned the exchange-rate issue in german unification. any economist would say that the exchange rate policy that was settled upon by the german government hyde -- made no rational sense whatsoever, but there were powerful political crash -- but pressures of work -- powerful political pressures at work. what do you see the pressures of work on that issue when it comes

time for the koreas to unify? who you think will be the contending forces? -- who do you think will be the contending forces? >> that is another really good question that i have not really started to consider. i will just give you a top of the head answer. given that trade unions are really only present at the top table, i think overall, labor in korea will not exert the kind of influence the jayden -- the german labor was able to exert. i think the table will be in much more decisive factor. to me, it is fascinating to watch the transition from second-generation to third- generation, you know, the transfer of power and authority and prestige not just in north korea, but in south korea's jabo.

and you have all of the jabal trying to hand off power. and there is the first matrilineal power transition that will be kind of fun to see. there is the notion that no one wants to upset the geese that are laying the golden eggs in korea. i think the jabo are still extremely powerful and will dictate to a large extent, to the extent that economic forces dictate unification economic policies are what the table will ask for. -- the jabal will ask for. many of the studies that i have reviewed have indicated not

doing what germany did. it is a huge dilemma. i have not been able to find a good answer. i do not think there is any magic combination of policies that you can come up with to achieve -- you know, you have these trade-offs. do i want it was incumbent board or want to attract investment -- to what equalize incomes or do i want to attract investment? -- do i want equalize incomes or dry want to attract investment? off the top of my head it would be more than likely be jabal interest as opposed to interest with respect to those policies. >> i believe you pretty much just answered it, but the question was going to be -- you touched upon the implications of bringing north korea labor up to

speed to integrate them into the south korean labour force. my question was going to be what would be the implications on south korean labour wages if there were to be a large influx. >> a great question and i'm sorry to say that i brought the embassy the idea for good food, but they said no good beer at lunchtime. it is a good question, but a tough question. the only real indicator we have for that is gaisong. i even tried to talk to the workers. they're very stiff. even a buy cracked a joke -- even if i cracked a joke like, well, it is really true, northern women really are attractive.

nothing, not even a model lisa smile. it just sternly sitting at their seats working. and a softer in would come up over there and say, get the heck out of there. they're trying to work. i have not had much conversation with those workers. but it is clear that the factories that are running well, they are beautiful new factories and have very good work conditions. the south korean owners that i have talked to have been very happy. as you know, there are hundreds of thousands of foreign workers in south korea from other parts of asia. i think most of them would be asked to leave. i think that would be the first step that would be taken, and in the short term, that would be the manner in which they would try to absorb some of the north korean workers. but you raise a very good point. north korea is very likely going to lower wages significantly for

south korea. i do not think there is any way to keep the labor forces or the economy separated. it is going to create a big social problem for south korea. but we know with the three d's, dirty, dangerous, and difficult that south koreans like to avoid, north koreans will like to -- will likely be asked to work those jobs. i think this will be manageable, given the labor shortages that the south korea already faces. on the pessimistic side, i think this is going to be very traumatic for korean labor. it is a very good question. >> you sort of touched on this issue a little bit, but have not addressed it directly, one of the biggest differences with germany is that east and west

germany never fought a war with each other. and they did not have -- so, the kind of intensity, the feeling of experience of horrible suffering at the hands of each other. how do you see this playing out? using the generational change is significantly lessening that aspect? >> that is another really good question. when my wife was growing up, her parents taught her when she was five or six years old, she had to memorize her home address, but not her address in seoul, south korea. it was her address in north korea. if chaos broke out again and the family was separated -- my in- laws were dating, but were separated and if by chance there were taken to refugee -- and

were taken again to a refugee center and got married. but assuming that is what happened to them, their assumption was that they would meet again not in seoul, south korea, but in the north. there is a generational quality to this. given that south korea is still 65 years later struggling with japanese colonials, who is a traitor and who is not, they are still in 2010 figuring out who's land needs to be taken away for collaborating with the japanese. it is mind-boggling to america, who has no sense of history -- [laughter] -- that they would be obsessing about this bill. i have no doubt that this will be another pandora's box that will inevitably be opened. there will be millions of south koreans and north koreans holding property deeds for land in north korea.

my mother-in-law was born in orchards, you know, a wealthy landowner, and she knows where she lived. i think this is going to be another difficult issue to resolve, and given that they have had 65 years to get it right with japan and have not gotten it right, that does not make me very optimistic that they will be able to resolve this in a quick or efficient manner. i do not think it will be able to have this blanket declaration of new claims to be taken. i do not think that will fly. they will have to find some way to accommodate and i do not know how they are going to do that at this point. add that to the list of headaches. >> time for one last question if any remain. there was one back here.

>> i know it is a big topic, but in terms of the political culture that varies so vastly between north and south korea, in terms of the learning curve and try to integrate north koreans into a unified system, what type of learning curve -- i was to these stories, as what you just said indicates, the vast political differences between the north and south. in terms of some sort of process to integrate north koreans into a broader, democratic, liberal society, what type of process do think that will entail? do think it will be a very long process or could it be done relatively quickly? >> i do not know if colin wants to say anything, but collin that has been managing projects to try to help with the civic and

education for north korean factors. the sad truth is that if it was not for american support, whether it is the national organization for democracy or the new national republican institute, there would be far fewer training programs for north koreans. i have had the opportunity of helping the international republican institute with some other groups in seoul. it will be a long process. it will take years both to the program and to create -- you know, one of the goals of the defector community is to create young leaders that will be in a position. the average north korean and south korea and wants to go back when unification actually happens. a nice article has been written about this usain we have -- the south korean government has got to put far more money, has got

to be far more attractive in creating leaders academies, schools -- you know, we could end up with this separate but equal, but the fact is that north koreans have trouble competing in this hyper competitive education system that south korea house. there was an article about a defector being accepted into university. i hope not through the back door. it will be a very difficult process. but thanks to the national republican institute, had a chance to meet with some of these people and there are some wonderful individuals -- you know, some becoming questions and doing so for their fate, but some wonderful individuals that are having regular meetings and receiving training on how to be an effective journalist, how to be a broadcaster, how to be a good leader. but there is nowhere near enough and at that -- enough of that.

i wish these programs were 10 times bigger than they are. but the programs do exist. i think it will take five or 10 years before they really have. i mean, south koreans are still mastering a well functioning democracy. i think is going to be a long- term project, but one that has already begun for some defectors in south korea. >> thank you all for your excellent questions and thank you, to peter for his excellent presentation. [applause] >> hopefully i have not given you too many headaches with all of the headaches that the south koreans face. >> before we break for lunch, i want to introduce you to a new staff member at the embassy, mr. john wrigley. he works in the staff education building. [applause]

luttrell the server across all. if you can get up, we will rearrange the chairs and a little bit so that we have some space to heaeat. campaignnetwork.or [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in about an hour and 40 minutes, president obama will be talking about the flight bomb plot and the investigation. the report is being released this afternoon. that is at 3:00 p.m. eastern, live for you on c-span. the head of a homeland security is reporting that officials said they have -- have fled to the suspect in the christmas bombing attempt as someone who should go through additional security when

he landed in the u.s.. jenna nepolitano and john brennan will answer reporters' questions about that. later today, you will be able to see a number of events at the white house several times. elsewhere in washington this afternoon, a discussion on u.s. policy toward afghanistan, ambassador richard holbrooke will be speaking about the administration's policy. he had to afghanistan and pakistan next week. we will have live coverage of his comments in just over an hour at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c- span2. and then tom vilsack here at the state department here in washington. a set -- a special briefing about the agriculture system in afghanistan. >> american icons, three original documentaries from c- span now available on dvt.

a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours of the white house, america's most famous home. and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital. american icons, a three disk dvd set. it is $24.95 plus shipping and handling. it is available at c-span.org /stohr. >> several political retirement an announcement over the last couple of days. representative chris murphy of connecticut sounds as though he may challenge senator joe lieberman in 2012. of course, senator dodd announcing his decision not to run in 2010. we talked with bob cusec this morning about some of the changes ahead in politics. cusack is the managing editor of the hill. he is here to talk with you

about his and his reporters' view of the party's chances of the 2010 elections coming up. i want to show you in the audience about what the morning headlines look like. the democrats may not be enjoying them this morning. and inside it says it determines pre-sage challenges for democrats in the midterm. here it says they add a burden for obama. this is from "the washington journal." retirement adds twist midterm -- usa today. in "the new york times" -- democrats become wary after two senators decide to retire. there is the headline view of reporters -- what is yours? guest: it is a nuanced situation

where you have the retirement of senator chris dodd which had been rumored for weeks. he denied it. it helps democrats. now that they are favored to retain that seat -- now they are favored to retain the seat. the announcement of dorgin was a total surprise. his seat in the red state of north dakota was expected to stay in the democratic camp as long as the governor was not going to run. when the announcement was made a changed landscape. now the seed is likely to change hands. in last year in the senate -- back then that would have said the landscape of how the senate will change is probably not that significant. over the past year republican recruitment has been solid. we have seen at the president's approval number step.

no one is talking about democrats losing their majority -- they would have to lose 11 seats. it is not likely. are they looking at losses for 2010, though? they are. karl rove has said between four and six seats. other independent analysts have said between two and five. host: for some who did not follow its a closely how many senate elections are their next year? guest: 37. host19 by democrats, 18 by republicans. it has changed because of replacements. as far as competitive seats, seats that could go either way -- on the democratic side we're looking at nine. on the republican side, five. it can change at a moment's notice.

those numbers are in play right now. host: have you been able to list those who have announced retirement? guest: as far as democrats, dorgin and dodd for the first elected. there have been many appointments such as gillibrand. but the two were the first elected. martinez retired earlier. he was replaced by lemieu who is not running again. it will be competitive in florida. meeks will run against either rubio provide conservatives and the republican party against crist, the governor of florida who is still considered the favorite. the bulls have tightened their. many close races coming down the stretch for november. host: we will give you the phone numbers and would like to have you join us in the discussion.

if you lived in a state with a senate race we would like to hear about what you have been reading and what your thoughts are as the election of your purchase. will move on to the house and a little, but we're beginning with discussion about the senate. bill ritter of colorado -- parties are all claiming that their prospects. let's begin with spokane, washington and richard on the democrats' line. do you have a question or comment about the elections? caller: i think they should all be retired. nothing are doing@@@@@@@@

if you look at the poll numbers, republicans are definitely feeling better about getting crushed this year, but their poll numbers have not significantly improved as a party. that is a concern for some republican strategists who noted that the certainly, there's an anti-incumbent mood in the country right now. that could hurt, also, some republicans and republicans have to be concerned that unlike the last two elections were democrats were generally safe, no democratic can'incumbent losn 2006, that could be different. most of them are expected to be democrats because they're the ruling party, but that does not inoculate them.

some republicans are facing difficult primaries. host: and the "boston globe" is the largest regional paper in new england and on the front page yesterday, senator dodd's announcement. it was a tough year for him. and picture is richard blumenthal, expected to succeed him and the "los angeles times" had a story about him as well. do you want to comment on that? guest: it was a very difficult decision for him. he has been thinking about it for a long time. in his speech yesterday mentioned he lost his good friend ted kennedy and his sister recently. he has also battled cancer over the summer.

to his credit he also edged knowledge to was in the toughest political shape of his career. he said all that factored into his decision to decide to retire. an interesting anecdote -- on christmas eve he went to arlington cemetery to kennedy's burial site and thought about it. he soon made the call after the holidays that he would step aside. host: dennis is watching in fort washington, maryland. are you there? let me move on to kevin in hartford, conn. caller: if the healthcare bill is such a great bill then these democrats would not be dropping like flies. they would stand up and be proud. instead of doing this in secrecy. not transparent as they promised. they 1 because of republican incompetence, and now they're doing a lot of the same.

the democrats are now doing the healthcare bill and a similar fashion behind closed doors. what is the difference? they are both correct. they should be able to go up and be proud of the healthcare bill. that is why they're dropping out. host: i hear both parties talking about the benefits of health care for their constituencies. that is one view. can you tell us the other? guest: democrats acknowledged that they will have to sell the bill. it would have a conference or allowed c-span cameras in. a lot of times the final decisions by either parties are made behind closed doors.

some of the polling is a bit shaky. one concern from democrats is the basis not very happy with the fact that the public option is basically dead. the republican base for the first time since 2004 is really fired up. democrats have a significant fund-raising advantages in the house. but right now they're playing defense. host: the hill has on its website congress law. -- blog. they have assembled a lot of abuse from a well-known people. fifth -- a lot of views. 12 democratic house members and 13 republican house members have decided to retire.

six republican senate members and two democratic members have decided to retire. it looks like the retirement tied is still running against the republicans? guest: the announced retirement of a democrat, brown, -- republicans said it could take the sea. it will be an uphill climb. the mood will be different this year. the numbers are not exactly lining up as republicans are saying as far as this massive discrepancy. if you look at numbers and pulling and independent analysts, in the house-certainly house budget losses for democrats. in the senate may be a handful of democratic losses. host: let's move on to the numbers in the house. all seats are up for reelection, but how many are competitive? guest: a fair amount. the house as a little more

difficult to gauge than the senate because many candidates have not gotten in the race. that is what's rnc michael steele got in trouble about a little yesterday because he told the fox show he did not think that the house republicans could win the house back. he retracted a little. some candidates have not yet gotten in. if you get charlie cook's analysis of there are more republicans in tough races. host: what is the majority? guest: 256 democrats and 176 are so republicans. the amount of pick ups will have to be about 40. when you look back to 2006 the democrats picked up 30. for 2008 it was 24. larger waves then the democrats

had will be difficult to do. @@@ @ @ currently they say the democrats have 38 seats as tossup for their party and republicans only have 11 seats listed as tossup orlean for theirs. next is bowling green, kentucky, earle on the republican line. caller: [unintelligible] it makes washington summit a big circus. summit the big circus run by a bunch of clowns. host: do you generally vote? caller: yes, i do. i voted for the individuals who think would do the best job. unfortunately, the individual who runs against the present senator, he was colored to say

the least. [unintelligible] you do not have a lot of choice. any more it seems like that is the way it is. they cannot find anyone credible to run against an incumbent. they pass bills like nafta which took thousands of jobs. unemployment is high now. the passing the bills you have not even read it to me is crazy. host: anything from kentucky you would like to add? guest: there are many people frustrated with the gridlock. democrats are. they have even said, floated as

liberal bloggers -- that the number for the filibuster should number for the filibuster should be dropped from 60 to thought so that things can get done. we saw this a few years back when republicans did the attempted nuclear option. there is frustration over bottleneck. people say that this was supposed to be the president to change the tone. like bush obama has struggled to do that. host: here is an obvious agenda. is the tea party affect influencing retirement in congress? guest: i think the jury still

out on that movement. it is one of the things that campaign analysts will watch closely, and so do we republicans on capitol hill like the enthusiasm of the tea party base, but also know it is not necessarily a republican movement. it is a conservative movement. if you are not conservative enough, then potentially u r target. they want to harness the enthusiasm, but are struggling with how to deal with it. for democrats, yes, they little. host: you have an article -- into policy six and new voting man. guest: this will be the first election since she was elected top house democrat issue will not go toe to toe with and george w. bush. she battled the president at that time. she lost in 2004, but then his

low approval ratings helped her to become speaker in 2006 and expand in 2008. she is very good. she said she was in campaign mode last month. she is very good at a defining her opponent. but will be her opponent on the republican side this time? certainly it george bush's policies will bebu involved willt who is the face of the republican party? do you talk about george w. bush and his policies? or more conservative lending rods like dick cheney and sarah palin? she did it when she labeled the health insurance companies' ads villain-- as villains. host: stay on your note about it

also being a problem for republicans. some are invoking 1994 when there was a big republican sweep in the house as a possibility for this year. the difference is that they had newt gingrich who organized candidates. is there a leader who is organizing candidates around a message for republicans this year? guest: not yet. michael steele suggested the other day that there will be some type of document -- not a contract with america, but some type of document to define the republican party. is it him or john boehner or mitch mcconnell? is it john mccain who has a record number of twitter followers? is it sarah palin? they do not have one clear leader. for 2005 after senator tom-0 and senator kerry lost, then the

democrats did not have a face either. it did not hurt them for 2006. host: daytona beach. caller: good morning. host: you have a big senate race coming up in florida. caller: yes, we do. independent intellectuals understand with regards to the history --the senate of the country began under the rule of law that no one is above the law. over the past 200 years society has evolved into different groups of people. the senate reflects them. when the majority get into power the bring forth their agenda here regardless of the law. instead of advocating for health care, although law and first get

the amendment. most intellectuals i know -- that is where my interest is is looking more for the principles of people. i just view the senate as a reflection of people. over the past 200 years we have gone from believing in principles and freedom and capitalism into a bunch of collective different groups of people who want to fight over our little bread crumbs that are important to whatever specific. specific to me the congress and senate just reflect that. host: ed harkinit harkens back e discussion that we had about ira schapiro saying that the

senate was at its best back in the 1960's and 1970's. that color reflects the same type of the crown -- the center of the break down concerning coalitions in society. guest: it is interesting to see frustration from some of the older members of the senate. the senate is older as far as its history and who is in it. senator chris dodd went to the senate floor before the holidays at to chastise the newer members for their behavior he did not name names, but most of the newer members are democrats. he could have referred to senator jim demint, a thorn in the side of democrats. al franken has also robbed people the wrong way. he went on and on about newer members and said they really need to understand what the

chamber is all about. host: should you have done about retirements. but on the same page there's another "gop struggles to capitalize." you have some new polls out. what are they telling you? guest: there was a recent poll, how you identify yourself as a democrat has dipped considerably over the past year. republican members and polls are still struggling. the problem for house republicans is -- @@@h

republicans are trying to make the case that we can win back the house, just hang in there another year. we will either close or makes it didn't strike. but a lot of these people run the house on the republican side had been in power and had been committee chairman and now they have very little power and it is frustrating to them. host: the "new york times", i believe, has a very -- has a store about art stupak and his role in the discussion about the health care bill and the topic of abortion but his party does not reflect his opinion, which puts him in the minority of the majority. but i'm wondering about when they formed caucuses to affect legislation. did on the health care reform debate which is still ongoing was quite remarkable. i

rare foreperson -- i think it was rare for a person not a committee chairman. he formed enough collisions where nancy pelosi knew that she needed to get as many votes as she could. without him and a lot of the people he got it would not have passed. stupak got his amendment on the floor. 240 democrats voted for his abortion amendment which is a lot more conservative than the senate language. it is interesting because nancy pelosi is very pro-choice. harry reid is pro-life in the senate. but the bill is kind of flipped. what stupak this remarkable, and he has gotten older. at first he said he would not vote for the healthcare bill unless he got an amendment.

then when his amendment passed to says it will not vote for any health-care bill without the language that he put there. that was pretty remarkable. host: let me add a little more. here is a photograph of him. for now as he considers his return to washington he is canvassing his district. he is trying to pass the health care overhaul. he predicts the legislation will ultimately collapsed for reasons apart from abortion. he will be blamed anyway, he is sure. he says "i'm sure in the last guy that the president wants to see." tammy on the democrats' line, fla. caller: thank you for c-span.

we have some good senators like nelson. that man is for the people. in a few weeks i will visit washington. lemieu's office when i called them -- at get any return phone calls or insight. faughalan is stepping them. that seed will be open. they say that our governor will run for senator. he is a good man and has done a lot for florida. -- that seat will be open when alan is stepping down. host: she is interested in

financial reform legislation which is senator dodd's committee. a number of analysis pieces. here is one. . . it is coming over to the senate. one of the main sticking points with this big bill is a consumer protection agency for the financial sector. this is something that the white house has pushed very hard. the financial services committee chairman, barney frank, was struggling to get votes. now it is over in the senate. now it is over in the senate.

he can just get down to legislating. legislating. he has a very good is, that consumer protection agency does not have -- will not have 60 votes and if it is going to pass the senate and think it could be something similar to the public option, where it they get it through the senate they will have to hash out the differences in conference. host: texas, richard, republican. caller: my comment is i feel if this republic is going to be saved, we just about have to repeal the 17th amendment just like real -- we repealed 18th prohibition amendment. prohibition amendment. the senate was designed to t the state. it was not ever designed to represent popular -- that was the whole point. they did not want philadelphia,

new york, boston people to run the country so that had a senate that was representing the state. and we've got some many senators who are not going back, and -- not doing that. it is creating a mess. it is given the governor's a mission of possible. just my opinion. host: let's show the front page of "the denver post." governor ritter is not going to be seeking reelection. the headline on the story -- guest: very interesting. can salazar, former senator from colorado --@@@@@@":::: he altman the accepted the job,

but it was a very difficult decision. he ultimately took the job and now democrats are trying to take that seat. he is the big name that is coming up now that ritter is not seeking reelection. the favorite also -- as the denver mayor, could also step in -- and republicans, former congressman scott mcinnis and another former congressman could make a play. but richard was suffering from low approval ratings and many people thought that if he ran he would have lost. host: republicans are suggested -- suggest king -- suggesting they would capture state houses. guest: the reason why it is so significant is because of the senate. the state legislatures and governors races. i think you will see a lot more federal money or money that usually goes to federal campaign committees going to the states

because it is so vital and people on both sides already have keep people watching the senses because it is so important. host: we got a lot of long time politics watchers the people -- explain why the census matters and by the government has a role in it? guest: when they send out a census and they are already starting for 2010, starting to get organized for that, basically the more people in district did -- different districts get more money. as populations grow and wayne, also congressional seats either get added to their districts get merged. it becomes fascinating for political watchers because in a certain state, a lot of the population drops, then you have a lot of match ups of democratic incumbent against democratic incumbent or republican incumbent against republican incumbent and a half to face

off. as far as to who draws the line as far as who decides what states will do more and how the districts are going to be drawn, a lot go to state water -- legislatures and governors office. a lot have independent commissions, but as we saw with tom delay in 2004, working with the republican governor and texas legislature basically redrew the districts. it challenged by democrats legally. republicans won. because of that, republicans pick up seats in 2004 elections and had it not been redrawn that we democrats would have picked up -- host: talking about salazar. it is headlined -- this headline.

in politicians speak, what does it translate to? guest: when we heard that he was joining the cabinet -- and we had sources saying that, we also asked him. we heard he was going to go to interior. he ducked and denied and ultimately went there. i think he is certainly weighing it. i wouldn't be surprised to see him get it. host: long beach, new york. you are here with bob cusack. guest: it is exasperated. i used to have a great deal of respect for the senate. i'm on the independent line. by nature i am conservative -- or its -- libertarian type person. i was watching or hatch giving a tour of the building and he went to the president's room with these marble statues and said this is where we come and meet

with our lobbyists, and he realized what he said and he said, constituents. there and lies the problems. they did not send all the jobs overseas, a great manufacturing jobs -- they did this hand in glove, democrat and republican together. when they are working bipartisan i know we are in big trouble. we are about to get stomped because they are not acting in our interest. these closed-door meetings with the health care, are you people upset? are you going to flush home and say something about that? i'm sorry. host: you don't have to be sorry. that is why -- why as the meetings to be opened. we had a conversation on a program yesterday morning's so we have in fact it something about that. and giving for the caller? guest: there is some frustration. the obama administration promised major change.

and not only the meetings, democrats and democrats about what will be on the final bill, but this white house is very pragmatic. they know how to count votes and they struck deals with lobbyists, with drug companies on the health care bill knowing if the drug industry was against them, it would be very difficult to get the bill through. but it thrust -- frustrates a lot of people. a lot of people on the left is asking, this is not the change we voted for. host: yesterday congressional leaders met at the white house. the speaker said sometimes there is an agreement but sometimes we approach the built differently. differently. >> telephone -- next telephone call from

avondale, ariz.. caller: i do not know who has the polls of the regular voters out there, republican, democrat, independent -- but it does not matter. i find that most people aren't overall disgusted with congress and the senate's. and whoever the incumbent is, i guess i saved i feel sorry for him, but it seems like everybody is going to vote for whoever the opposition is. regardless of party affiliation. they're just overwhelmingly tired of this stuff. these people do not represent us anymore. the vote along party lines. they do not represent the people anymore. i think it even goes down into the local elections in the communities, people are going to vent this discussed. host: another call about voter

sentiment. it guest:, and one of the things to remember is that in these volatile times -- and it used to be if you looked back six, eight, 10 years, those elections, the differences in the house and senate, you would go up three or four or five seats, really, 2006 was the biggest wave since 1994. and we have seen another wave in 2008. and these volatile times and high unemployment, two wars going on, terrorist plots, also the elections are volatile. another wave is expected, but the other way and how big is remains to be determined. but the thing to think about is that while incumbents in congress as an institution are never really popular, a lot of people like their local congressman, and if you are going to be their local congressman or senator, you will have to raise money so you can go on television. the will have to have a good staff. . .

people that run and launched these bids. if they don't have that, they are not going to win. host: you have a story in "of the hill." -- "the hill." why are committee chairmanships important? why should people follow the detailed down to this level? guest: because they will decide what is in the bills of what is in the bills of jurisdiction. look at the health care bill, senate finance committee, chairman max baucus is more conservative than most democrats and he crafted a bill that even some democrats on his panel would not crazy about the end up voting for it. whoever heads the committee is usually the one crafting the bills and setting the agenda for the committee.

generally working with house and senate leadership. whoever gets the gavel basically has a ton more power than the second ranking person. if committee chairman does not help the votes, -- you have seen jostling over the last year, a lot of committee chains -- chairs have changed. it also depends on elections as far as who gets the chairmanship's and what kind of ratios -- how many democrats, how many republicans. host: connecticut, charles, republican line. good morning. caller: mr. bob cusack was speaking before about republicans getting behind some faith that was obvious. i watched the senate a great deal on c-span. the one man who impresses me the most when he is speaking on the floor is tom coburn.

i'm wondering what mr. cusack's viewpoint of tom coburn as a leader in the republican party. i will hang up. guest: he is definitely very popular among the republican base. he usually votes fairly conservative on almost all issues. he is a friend of actually the of the president, they have good working relationships but ideologically are very different. he did vote for the bailout, which raised some eyebrows but republicans are happy he is running again. he is now in his first term -- his second term, that will be it for him. in six years plus he will be leading the senate. it -- leaving the senate. but he also republicans the wrong way because he blocks their bills, whether appropriations or earmarks.

he was a big backer of senator mccain because of his anti earmarked position. he is definitely a voice in the republican party but because he will basically be in his last term next year it will be interesting to see woody does in -- when he leaves. he is a doctor. in a go home. host: a question about the florida senate race -- as opposed to charlie crist, the governor. guest: there definitely were some splits in that we saw in the republican primary when it came down to mitt romney and john mccain, and there were some splits about who is on what side. and i believe -- i believe mccain contributed to rubio. but charlie crist is basically a mccain guy and because charlie

crist back the stimulus, which mccain had not, that is something that really hampered him. rubio, who is just viewed as an up-and-coming star, newt gingrich had said a lot of good things about him over the years. really closing in but that image of charlie crist hugging obama and then charlie crist recently saying he really didn't back the stimulus has hurt his political standing. but charlie crist is still a very shrewd politician. anyone who counts and out could be foolish. host: washington, pennsylvania. paul on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment on the 2010 elections. i don't think there are going to be any presidential coattails. i certainly hope we can include arlen specter in that retirement party. i'm always amazed, mr. cusack, people like you, will have such

a wealth of information -- i guess it is your job -- but it is good to hear people like you because we get to know a little bit more about what is going on besides watching c-span. lastly, i would like to say, i will harkened back to gerald ford's speech. i think the national nightmare was starting. i don't think it was over. and i would like to say something that i know this may not be very popular, but when the democrats decided to destroy richard nixon because he did something that democrats do all the time, we left ourselves open to all of what has happened since then. i will hang up and you can tell me what you think about what i have to say. host: thank you so much. let us start with his comments about senator specter. charlie cook in his political report put senator arlen specter's seat firmly in a tossup. guest: fascinating race. it started up where it look like

when arlen specter was a republican he was going to face up against pat toomey in the republican primary and a lot of republicans privately said, well, we don't want pat toomey to run because he can't win general, and now are inspected changes parties and now, specter is battling congressman joe sestak in the race -- that race is looking to find joe sestak, he is a favored to win the primary -- host: who is favored to win? >> arlen specter. he is up in the polls but that may change because a lot of people are frustrating with arlen specter, both on the left and right. but the matchup of pat toomey and arlen specter, if it is that, is going to be fascinating. these guys went at it in 2004 and the republican primary. arlen specter barely beat pat toomey. these guys are not friendly toward one another. that could be a fascinating race. polls have shown pat toomey has made up some ground and recently

he said he backed actually the nomination of sonia sotomayor, which is gonna surprise because he is a conservative and most conservatives rejected her. some people viewed that as a move to the middle. host: twitter -- guest: absolutely. if you are an incumbent, once you get here you are favored to stay her >> we will be live at the white house as president obama talks about the flight to hundred 53 attempted bombing. that is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. the president will speak on that report at 3:00. 45 minutes after that, the homeland security secretary will

answer questions. that will be live at 3:45. we will also open up phone lines to get your reaction. later in the program, and about 20 minutes, a discussion on u.s. policy toward afghanistan and pakistan with the special representative to those countries, richard holbrooke. he is speaking at the brookings institute this afternoon at 2:30. that is live on c-span to. 2. the special briefing is being held looking at at -- afghanistan of our cultural reconstruction. that news conference is set for four-o'clock 15 on c-span2. coming up as an event with juan carlos zarate, a former bush

administration member. this is from yesterday from the washington center and academic seminars. >> congress and the obama presidency. this program is one that brings to washington undergraduate students from all over the united states. i have been associated with this program as a factory director for about 10 years. this is a program which is very dear to my heart. we have consistently had some of the best speakers available and certainly this is true of juan carlos zarate.

there is a scene in the movie about the watergate in bashan, all the president's men, and there is a meeting in an underground garage where an informant with the code name of deep throat tells robert redford playing bob woodward that if he wants to find out who is responsible for the burglary at the democratic headquarters, you should follow the money. we have somebody here who has followed the money. he did so in his capacity as the deputy secretary of the treasury board took this was a job that involved one of the most complex tasks and the anti- terrorism effort. that is how these people get money, spend their money, and it takes a person with uncommon

diligence and intelligence to be able to track this down, including the assets of saddam hussein. he went on from there or at the treasury department to the national security council on where he was responsible for a major part of the government's counterterrorism strategy involving international security threats, counter-narcotics, maritime security, a hostage taking, organized crime, his portfolio is a very broad one. not only has he followed the money, he followed a lot more than that. he will become professor zarate on the 16th of may when he becomes the faculty director for the washington center's but week-long program that will run

into the 21st of may in washington. we will fit him for his cap and gown when the time comes. juan carlos zarate, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. i am looking forward to being a part of the team. i want to leave us much time for open discussion as possible because there have been so many important issues in the news, including the president's meeting yesterday with respect to the terrorism threat in how it is evolving. i want to talk for a bit to set the stage but also make sure that we have plenty of time for questions and answers. i have been quite privileged

over the past eight years in the positions that i have help. in particular, the national security council over the past four years in the second term of the bush administration. i was responsible for the national security council's strategic lookit all trans- national threats. in that context, and in my role of the treachery department, terrorist financing and financial crime, i was able to see what was important internationally in terms of security. with the few minutes i have today, i would like to talk about that change in the international landscape. i think that france so many of the issues that we're facing today. it frames so many of the problems the constructs has and the political establishment and

also affects the relationship between congress and the executives which is obviously a topic of the seminar this week. in many ways, 9/11 was not just the shock to the u.s. national security system but a momentous event in ushering in a new era of international security. one in which a new paradigm was introduced. individuals, networks, and sells operating from the darkest corners of the world could have a brand geode-political impact using the implements of mundanity -- modernity. it will continue to shape how we look at international security over the next decades and even

the next century. this is an environment that is defined by factors that i think that are well-known by to put are important to put into context. increasing globalization where what happens in one country can ripple across the world and affect others, i think the recent financial crisis has only underscored the dimensions of the interconnectedness of the world. if there is a pull operation of information, good, bad, indifferent, conspiracy theories, troopsruths, information is widely distributed and available at any corner of the world. it is an area in which the means of destruction can be catastrophic and could be

available to individuals and networks. i think the recent case of the bomber who attempted to ignite the device on the flight to detroit is a good example of individuals being able to use a relatively simple explosive devices to create catastrophic effects, even in failure, having major political ramifications. one can only imagine what would happen if terrorists or networks or to use weapons of mass destruction, and biological agents, radiological devices or even a nuclear device. those means of destruction are out there. the information about them is widely available and it will only disseminate further in the future. in addition, i think 9/11 is

well demonstrated about what to do with the game and -- yemen is that no corner of the country can be ignored. the world is so interconnected and people can connect so easily with the western world, there is no corner of the world that can be ignored. that goes not only for terrorism were you have safe havens in places like the troubled regions of western pakistan, the lawless land up somalia, but also with issues like health were a pandemic and start in one corner of the world and rapidly spread to the entire world. we have a much different landscape given the nature of how interconnected the world is. in addition, we have a taxonomy

of nation states of the world. some have great capacities, others are faltering, others bordering on being failed states and others being failed states. you have a full spectrum of countries that are in many ways on able to deal with some of the threats and issues. in some cases, either willfully blind or complicity in the threats. finally, there are issues of resources and demographics which i think become increasingly more important over the coming years, if not decades. there is the rushed for resources. you see this in china's attempts to acquire access to oil and other precious resources around the world. we see this in the question of

water resources in the middle east. another key question in the context of the game in which has -- of yemen which has diminishing water supplies. a study was put up called the grain of the great powers. it talks about the aging western powers, in particular, western europe. questions of demographics with the effects on the economy,, national security, will continue to be important. i think that we are witnessing in new era in which albert national security is tied intimately with the international security environment around the world and

in every corner of the world. in the financial crisis, for example, things that were not considered part of our national security previously. this has real world ramifications. i think the terrorism example is the easiest one to think about in this context. known actors can work in small groups or even as individuals. they can operate from any where in the world. these are areas and the world better not governed and areas where individual actors can in essence create geopolitical have it from these regions.

to have this in the context of al qaeda but you have it in other groups that are important to watch which can have geopolitical impact. there is a kashmiri group that has been responsible for many attacks in india. there are many holidays where we lost holidays because of terrorist acts. we have to spend a lot of time dealing with the aftermath of the handiwork of some of these nefarious actors. the attack in mumbai is exactly what i am talking about.

they took the city hostage for three days, and were able to do it with the regular weaponry and, with just 10 individuals, with some training and probably backing from authors, but able to in essence during q political havoc -- bring in geopolitical have ioc. they have the same with hezbollah, a group that the support and opposition to israel and has become a global terrorism group of the past 25 years. it is a group that is supported by iran and is trying to become more and more part of the social and political fabric of love and on. it is a group that has its own agenda.

it is considered a state within a state. and then work of factors -- a network of factors. what is interesting about this is not that just you have these groups out there but what is important to watch in the future is how these groups and other loose affiliations and networks, drug trafficking groups, international organized crime, smuggling networks, all interact. there is some very important and revealing cases that demonstrate this. the dea recently unsealed an indictment in which they alleged that a number of individuals tied to al qaeda in

north africa or responsible for drug-trafficking from south america through west africa into europe. what you have in that case is a demonstration of what kinney fault in this new environment where international networks cannot only adapt and the concerts to elaborate and work together. you have the drug that works out of south america tied to a rocky the groups in africa affecting security issues not just in that region but also in europe. you have the potential for disaster if you see the facilities of these groups and to work internationally. the nightmare scenario is some of these groups collectivizing for purposes of profit or

radiology and use and struggle -- and use or smuggle a weapon of mass destruction. what we worried most about was al qaeda or other groups who expressed an interest in obtaining and using a weapon of mass destruction could get access to it through some of these unaffiliated networks where we know in the past, there has been eighdevices smuggled through central asia. this is a world in which these networks and individuals can relate to very easily and very effectively using mode density -- using modernity. this makes them incredibly potent.

this also speaks to the information environment. the web 2.0 technologies of today, the ability to move money through cell phones, use a chat rooms or blogs, highlight where we are coming national security perspective. you see this in the terrorism context where you have individuals that are radicals that are connected to other groups by the internet. the use of communicative tools but we saw in the fort hood case where the perpetrator was communicating with eight american yemeni cleric. this is a different era in terms of information. it is also a different era and the context of how social

context operate. not only the bad guys can use this but also other movements can use them like the green movement in iran. the use them to organize and plan moving forward. we saw the importance of facebook and several of these moments. one of the things that we saw on the national security council was a growing movement against terrorism using these technologies. there was one movement that was incredibly effective in using facebook to draw out a global protest campaign against the terrorist organization in colombia. but one individual was able to organize and rally people worldwide against kidnapping and other uses of violence against

colombian citizens. that is an important demonstration of the power of this technology to actually impact local security issues and geopolitical security issues. one of the challenges for us and our national security complex is this new environment. the way the international security structures are established rely on a state to state, westphalia and model for how to deal with these issues. we dealt with the latter part of the 19th century and a state based model for international relations where countries and alliances and balances of power define how we were securing ourselves as well as dealing with some of these other ills.

the problem with that model in this context is that aid is not nimble enough to handle the dynamics that impact geopolitical ways in the 21st century. one of the huge challenges for any administration or national security professionals moving forward is trying to figure out what this environment looks like, not only how to defend against these cataclysmic events but how to prevent use and implemented this new environment things like technology and facebook to align dynamics internationally and create greater security.

there is the question of what to do with help with the green movement in iran estimate do want to help that. that is a good debate. there is a more fundamental question that if we did want to help and we wanted to use technology for have technology served as a lever, what would that look like? how would we use social networking? how would be used access zones for people and oppressive countries? how should we think about that is a national security issue, not to mention as global citizens? that becomes incredibly important. how do we think about the power after ngo's that have incredible resources in parts of

the world where we may not have access? groups like the a foundation that is a conglomerate of ngo's that do humanitarian work in southeast asia and africa. how do we think about them and how should we work with them and how should we leverage the power without tainting them? these are all critical questions that have yet to be answered. finally, how do we, from a legal perspective, this gets into the role of congress, how to restructure legally how it is that the u.s. government deals with this environment? for example, under current law, the state department is restricted from messaging into the united states or to u.s. citizens. part of a broad set of rules to

avoid the u.s. government from propaganda which is good. we live in a free and open society. we do not need the government propagandizing. that said, and the age of the internet, how does one define communications in the country and to american citizens and communications outside? what does that legal framework look like? and that has yet to be entered. those are the types of legal questions that need to emerge and. i think congress has a major hand in this. i think unfortunately, the history of congressional action on national security issues has largely been one of being reactive, after the fact. dealing with the last case scenario. the 9/11 commission dealt with the prior event. hearings usually have to do

with the last thing that happened. congress by its nature is not a nimble and not necessarily outfitted to be looking around the corner for the next threat. there are certain things that we need to look at, like how we think about information, but there are other issues that congress needs to be engaged in. one example is something the was mentioned in an op ed in the "washington post." it is the need to talk openly between the executive branch and congress about a legal paradigm that deals with the problems of terrorism as we understand them in the 21st century. the major political debate, and some of it is rhetorical, is whether or not we are at war with terror.

should the subject -- sow should the subset -- should the suspect in the detroit bombing be treated as a hostile enemy? we are neither fully and war and the classic sense of state-to- state, that with all the rules and structures that applied to that but neither are we fully in a criminal legal context. part of that has to do with the multiple feeder to mention of what we're talking about. people are shooting at each other in places like afghanistan, but it is hard to say those are criminal environments and solely? of criminals. at the same time, it is hard to argue with our european

colleagues that this is a war paradox. many of our european colleagues think the fear of radicalization is in their streets. it is very hard with the baltic will theaters at play when we talk about the terrorism threat in the 21st century to say we are in one paradigm or the other. one of the things that we have felt collectively to do as an american society is decide how we are going to deal with this threat. and deal with it in a way that appears legitimate but is constitutionally a legitimate. much of the debate in the prior administration surrounded the military commissions act. there is a larger question of how to deal with known terrorists who are trained in connected to this international network but against whom we

might not have sufficient evidence to present in a criminal or military context. what do you do about those threats? that remains an issue. you saw yesterday in the president's address when the president said that with respect to the detainees in guantanamo, given the conditions on the ground in yemen, that we would suspend any further expand -- extradition of them to that country. you cannot return known terrorists into an active theatre of battle or environment, especially when those individuals or present a threat. i recommend you look back at this and read it. if you look back to the president paz important speech at the national archives in may, he said it very explicitly that he and we will not release individuals who are a danger to

the u.s. regardless of whether or not we have enough evidence and he admits quite openly that we are going to hold people against whom we are not able to bring charges either in a criminal context or a military context. we are talking about a preventative detention model under the u.s. legal system. this is under the obama administration which has talked about bringing the rule of law into the war on terror. this is incredibly important to have the consensus and the u.s. as to how we are coming to address this problem is moving forward. this is not just the problem of guantanamo. guantanamo is a system of this larger region a symptom of this larger issue. we need to deal with this moving forward. the problem is not going away.

the president said yesterday we will need to continuously adapt to deal with the problem. i think congress and the administration have a responsibility to set forth a legal paradigm that explains this and that is constitutional and that is defensible, not just here at home but also abroad. that is something the president committed to in may. one other point with respect to how we deal with this new national security environment. i think we're not very good at figuring out how to use non- state actors and individuals from the good side to actually affect our national security

interests. how do you deal long term with the problem of this radical ideology which purports to be based in islam that is radicalizing individuals and trying people to the battlefield? what do you do about this? one of the answers, i think, at least a core part of it, is the solution and the rejection of this ideology has to come from within communities themselves within the united states and also a broad. frankly and hopefully, many voices are starting to emerge that countered the ideology of al qaeda and the ideology of some of the violent ideologues that support their broader

agenda. we do not hear much about it in the u.s. media but these are courageous voices in the muslim community beginning to emerge, many in the grass roots context, to start to oppose the al qaeda agenda. there is a group called sisters against violent extremism. they have gathered together sort of like the mothers against drunk driving movement here. they have had an important impact in places like india and pakistan where they are organizing chapters and rallies and starting to organize people. there are groups made up of ex jihadists who have seen the light and decided to counter their old ideologies. i think that is an incredibly important movement to watch to

see how they can work internationally. these are things that are happening organically. one of the problems that we had when i was in government and i think we still have is figuring out how you harness these organic trance and networks -- trends and networks that influence our national security? how do you do it in a way that does not paint them? some individuals to not want to be associated with the u.s. government. it is not just a matter of funding them. what does that look like? how we create the conditions that helps? the challenge of the coming decade or even decades is recognizing the changes in the

security environment but figuring out how we address the issues, defend ourselves against the most severe threats and then figuring out ways of positively affecting the environment to the very same dynamics. with that, i would be glad to take any questions that you have and continue the dialogue. [applause] [inaudible] > my question is pertaining o the fort hood massacre a few months ago. sarah palin said that she would

support profiling against muslims and the army if it meant saving lives. do you agree with that? >> i cannot think profiling is the answer so i do not agree with that. i think the reality is that the vast majority of muslim americans are incredible patriots loyal to the country, including those who serve in the military. i think we need to be very careful that we not allow incidents like the massacre in fort hood to create artificial provisions in our society. one of the strength of our society pointed to this that we have a society that this integrated, populations, cultures, ethnicities, from all over the world. there is one scholar who has said that the best counter to the radical ideology that the

added states has is the reality of the american dream. the fact that you can come to this country, be considered an american, thrive, have your children do well, and be a part of the society. that is incredibly important. i would also say that there are a number of important and courageous muslim americans that work in the federal government and with whom i have worked for the past eight years and continue to work. one of my close friends worked with me at serious organizations and remains a close friend. there are several muslim americans that are an incredible part of this country. >> if we had profiled in the man

at the fort hood massacre, it would have been prevented. >> i disagree. it is not a matter of profiling. it is a matter of judgment. one of the things that we need to do is refine our judgment on some of these issues. i testified to this to the senate. part of the problem i think was that people are not willing to make tough judgment calls about his service it -- his suspicious views, partly because he was a major in the military and a doctor. in many ways, he had the dual privileges of being an officer and a medical professional in the military. there may have been some desire not to appear offensive because of his religious views. i think we need to get over

that. i think we still need to ask this -- ask difficult questions up about people who are saying dangerous things. that is very different from profiling. >> thank you. >> you mentioned earlier the idea of interconnection of terrorist organizations. what is the chance of these groups organizing enough to attack the u.s. and what is the government doing to combat this? >> i have spent a lot of time thinking of what happens beyond all keyed up. there will come a time and we are starting to see it or al qaeda is on the decline.

that does not mean that the terrorism threat will disappear. al qaeda has represented the most strategic and direct threat to u.s. interests because they have had a global agenda and consider us the head of the snake. they have driven a global agenda against the u.s. using the most violent of themes. that does not mean they're not individual actors either inspired by that same ideologies or other ideologies that might want to do us harm. one concern of some analysts and is that at some point, the environmentalist movement which has some violent tendencies, groups that have attacked

individuals are set fire to developments, that there is a potential violent tendency in groups like that to ultimately then disrupt the the national security. i am not sure that i buy that. it means that we need to look beyond the current paradigm of al qaeda itself. it continues to be a threat. what is beyond that? what is beyond that is the potential of small groups of individuals organizing and using potentially catastrophic means to attack u.s. interests either for ideological purposes or for profit. these are things that we need to constantly be thinking about and always be looking for. as a society, we must always be wary of the past threat and need

to look to the near horizon for the next threat that may emerge. >> what exactly is the government doing? >> in the first instance, they are trying to destroy the links that al qaeda has. you have seen a lot of pressure along with the government of pakistan to destroyed the base of al qaeda. you heard the president talked about going after their presence in yemen. this in the previous administration going after groups that have ties to al qaeda. there are groups in west africa central africa that are tied to al qaeda and are working with allies to go after those groups. with respect to al qaeda, the

strategy was and still is to destroy it al qaeda where it sits and wherever it takes root. with respect to international organizations and drug networks, we started to see the dea in cage much more globally. when i was at the national security council, they started a program to go after high value international marketers of weapons. it was because of the dea that the merchant of death that was responsible for shipping weapons all of the world was ultimately arrested in thailand. you have the government trying to figure out ways to disrupt these high value networks and individuals as a way of disrupting potential networks. but it is very difficult. >> thank you.

>> you mentioned earlier that globalization has increased over the last 20 years. with this chinese hegemonic status has increased as a result of it. do you believe that china could become a u.s. arrival? do you believe that this could disrupt the balance of power in today's world? >> great question. the role of china is a critical question in the coming years. no doubt china will become an economic rival. they already are and will soon be the second largest economy in the world surpassing japan.

in terms of the economic engine in china, all indications are that continued growth are expected. without a doubt, economically, there will be tension. there will be a race for resources are round the world. the start to see chinese companies trying to acquire access to resources and foreign companies that have access to mines in particular resources of interest. they're going to be rivalries. the key question is the maturation of chinese foreign policy. are they less insular and less concerned about threats to their own power in asia and more

responsible in dealing with some of these very important international threats? here is one example. in the run-up to the beijing olympics, the chinese were worried about terrorist attacks to disrupt the games being a black mark on china's reputation. we worked very hard with them and disrupted a few attacks. one attack would have occurred on an airplane heading to china. those came out of western pakistan. they were tied to al qaeda and an islamic movement that we consider a terrorist organization. that said, china continues to see the threat of terrorism through their local landscape. they have yet to engage fully as a global partner on how these

national threats affect global security. this also goes beyond the terrorist, -- terrorist context. their willingness to oppose sanctions to iran, to hurt their own commercial interests and to meet international security considerations. there is a full plate of international issues were chinese involvement would not only be helpful but wwould be beneficial to them. the question is when does that become national policy? >> thank you. >> i just wanted a bit of clarification. about the detaining of

potential threat individuals. >> i think there are individuals and that are trained bout of kea will continue to be a threat and they should be -- trained by al qaeda that will continue to be a threat in should be detained. some have argued for a modification of the surveillance act. i am not sure what the right framework is but i do think there has to be a way of holding such an individual even if in the current context, we cannot have enough evidence to present in a criminal context but where an executive has made the determination that they are a risk. this is not just a pushed administration thing. this is something that president obama has recognized and something that we must have transparency on. something that has a regular review process to it.

not just the danger of the individual but the environment in which that individual is. the president said they would not transfer ye individualmen to because the -- not transfer individuals to yemen because that environment is dangerous. i could not think it should be pervasive but it needs to exist. >> thank you. >> in the past few months, i have seen on news channels that certain military personnel have been put on trial for instance is that happened after they captured in battle. i for members -- i remember seeing how they put one military

person on trial for assaulting a captured terrorist. some people have said this has been hindering our war. should we be focusing more on what is really going on? >> by what is going on, what do you mean? >> i understand that we should treat everybody equally and i do not condone what happened in guantanamo but some of these instances that may seem a bit smaller, do you agree with that but that these instances are taking away from what our focus should really be? >> i would recommend watching cbs news. i am frequently on air. did not listen to those other guys.

-- to not listen to those other guys. holding people accountable for doing things that are illegal is important. we demonstrated that we are willing to do that. i think there is a problem when we oversimplify what has happened in the past. that is shorthand for the use of torture and the abuses at guantanamo. there is a bit of myth making that has happened over time. in guantanamo, most people would agree including the attorney general, it is actually a good prison. i was on the radio program the other day with a friend of mine

that has a different view but when this announcement of the illinois facility being purchased to transfer individuals there, it was argued it was a bad idea. his concern had to do with the facility. he said the facility in illinois it will not have the same facilities. they have a library, a soccer field, internet access. these other facilities are ideal. guantanamo has such a bad reputation and it is a symbol for attention of individuals. i think part of it is a character of some of the very difficult problems we are dealing with and continue to deal with. i agree with you. we need to focus on the broader issues and hold people accountable for the things that they do that are illegal. i think we also need to be careful not to oversimplify or characterize things without

facts. . . >> mishicot the center ourselves in terms of criticism of what the government does. it does not matter who is in power. criticism of the koerner

administration as well as the previous administration. the thing i worry are for the long term, particularly with the intelligence community, to a certain extent it feels under siege, i think. the release of the cia memos, the special prosecutor kind of reinstated to review cases -- i think the cia in particular fields of it under siege. the reality is that we saw this violent and tragic incident in afghanistan, the cia is on the front lines every day, literally in the worst parts of the world, trying to do the most important work for our national security. i do not think people should be above criticism. i do not think any agency or a politician or head of a department should be above criticism at all. that is critical to our society and the way government works. but we need to be careful how we do that and what we may be

saying or doing now may have a long-term effect in terms of our overall national security. >> ok, thank you. >> i am from columbia state university in columbus, georgia. as you know, pakistan is a nuclear power and the taliban and al qaeda have a very significant presence in pakistan right now. in the wake of the mumbai attacks and almost every other week, a terrorist incident happening in pakistan, it seems to be coming -- becoming unstable. do you know of any kind of plan that the u.s. has to secure those nuclear-weapons if the government were to fall? if they were to fall into the taliban or al qaeda, that would be a huge security threat. >> the volatility of pakistan is

a critical national security issue. when we left office there was the belief, to do with us that were worried about counter- terrorism issues, that pakistan was going to be a core national security issue concern for this administration. you mentioned all the factors. you have got terrorist groups and individuals operating in country. you've got potentially radicalized individuals willing to help -- individuals or actors willing to help those actors. before 9/11 there was -- there were public talks about wmd issues. but after 9/11, which designated a number of individuals in that group.

there's the threat of global terrorism meeting with sympathies within a nation state that also has nuclear protect -- capacities. pakistan is such an important country in the region for the stability of the region that it cannot be underscored enough how imported is that we help them remain stable. and there is a war under way in pakistan. there are bombings, it seems, almost every day. there was a horrific bombing of a volleyball game the other day near western pakistan. the pakistan taliban went after an entire town, in essence, for that town starting to cooperate with the government and form anti- taliban militia. there is a real war under way and part of the challenge we have had is to deal with the threat on the western front as opposed to worrying so much about india.

>> i am from quebec university. -- quin pape university. how do we justify the amount of support and money given to israel despite the frequent security risks which their nations' actions as well as our general association with them give us? >> i would from it a little differently. i think israel is a key ally. it is a democracy in the middle east that we have supported not on the establishment of, the defense of israel for decades. the israelis are our friends, our allies. the work very closely with them. it is a dynamic society. there is a lot of innovation that comes out of israel, do not forget the minefields like medicine and other parts of technology. and it is an important society in the middle east. are -- i think our allegiance with israel is critical. i think we have got to deal with

the fact that not only is israel under siege, but others feel threatened by the existence of israel. i think one of the challenges in the peace process is getting people to actually agree that israel has the right to exist. that is the problem with potential dealings with hamas. that is the reality of the chartered instruction with the state of israel. israel is a recognized nation state with the u.n. i'm not sure why we should feel any compunction or any problems with supporting israel. i think they are an important ally. >> i am from suffolk university. my question for you is, you mentioned ruth marcus is opinion column today in the washington post and the problems with our preventive detention model that

we have today in the united states. my question for you is, what would you advise in fixing this legally to prevent the reemergence of former detainees from once again resuming to terroristic activity? >> two points, first, it needs to be recognized that the bush administration was trying to close oconomowoc. president bush himself said in 2006 that he wanted to close guantanamo, but you have to resolve the problem of how to deal with the dangerous individuals first. this administration is starting to talk about it now, the reality that the bush administration released over 500 individuals from guantanamo, some of whom were sent back to yemen and saudi arabia and some of whom have returned to the battlefield. there is a certain degree of recidivism with respect to the individuals sent back. we have to realize that there is a risk any time you send these known actors back to a home country, or into a theater.

they could retire at -- return into battle, despite the best efforts of the u.s. or the host government. that is the first point. there may be a risk attached to any decision, they're for. secondly, with respect to preventive detention, as we were talking about earlier, i think we need to have an open debate about this with congressional hearings, perhaps a commission, to talk about what this new legal paradigm looks like. because right now, we are dealing in the meter fish nor fowl mode of a legal paradigm. -- neither fish nor fowl mode of a legal paradigm. a lot of political debate about the right handling of individuals, what is legitimate or not -- and i think at the end of the day, when the administration is not able to close guantanamo for its own deadline and even if they do close at guantanamo, we will be holding individuals who have not faced a trial and people will start getting confused about how

it matches with the reddick imrick of -- with the rhetoric of the rule of law. people need to recall there is a lot of war paradigm that is legitimate that the supreme court has upheld to hold individuals indefinitely prisoners of war. we have our criminal legal paradigm, but we have got to find a way in this new environment where we are now battling a nation state, we are not battling individuals with uniform. their identities may be confused. and where we have multiple theaters of battle, as i described earlier, hot hitter's of battle as was urban environments. and -- hot cedars of battle as well as urban environment. you've got to mention that we are protecting people's civil rights and not holding people indefinitely that may be innocent. that is a tough balance to draw. over time, the bush administration tried to deal with it in somewhat of a

defensive mode because of litigation under way, etc. i think this administration has an opportunity to set the tone and the debate as to how that works, but it requires congressional attention, which goes to the heart of your course this week. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, all, thanks. live coverage of president obama presenting the findings of the declassified report of an attempted bombing on christmas day. the associated press writing the president obama pose a national security advisor said the people who read the report wilford -- will feel a certain job about olivine is warning signs. the president's remarks have been pushed to 4:30 p.m. eastern time. the white house briefing with jenna nepolitano will follow that at 5:15 p.m. we will have live coverage of both of those events and take your phone calls. also, when the report is released, you'll be able to read it at our website c-span.org.

and at 4:15 p.m. on c-span2, live coverage of officials -- administration officials talking about agriculture in afghanistan. right now, part of a discussion on president obama's strategy and afghanistan. this portion is about 90 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> good morning, and thank you for coming. i'm happy to welcome you to the -- you are not hearing me? are you hearing me now? i am thomas mutiere. it is my pleasure to welcome you. we are here to discuss an important topic and we have an excellent panel. but before we do that, i would like to take a few minutes to talk about the middle east policy council. we are an independent nonprofit 501 c three educational organization -- 501-c3 educational organization and we have been trying to promote better understanding of the united states interest in the middle east. and we do that in three ways. the first is our quarterly journal called "middle east policy" which has been edited very ably by ann joyce for 25 years.

the second is this capitol hill conference series. again, this is our 59th. we present four of them a year, discussing important topics and bringing in good panelists. and we always have the transcript of our capitol hill conference to serve as the first article in our quarterly journal, but even before that you will be able to hear the audio and see the video on our website, which is www.nepc.org. and our third program is a public outreach program which includes commentary for the media, but the most important element of it as our teacher workshop program, a program in which barbara troubles around the country and helps high

school teachers, middle school teachers, elementary teachers learn how to teach about the middle east and islam better. she reaches about 1500 teachers per year and about 150,000 students a year with that program. so, i ask you to look at our website and read about our programs and think about subscribing to our journal. today, we are here to discuss afghanistan. obviously, the president has made his decision about the way forward. he needed in a very deliberate way, hearing a vice from people whose opinions differed. and instead of choosing a more narrowly focused counterterrorism strategy, he chose to surge additional forces to afghanistan and pursue a very

ambitious counterinsurgency strategy. we have people here on the panel who agree with this and people who question it and disagree with it. certainly, there are issues concerning the partners that we have to work with in afghanistan and pakistan. and the train and the typography and -- the tomography and another issue is that we have already lost thousands in this war and we have spent billions and will probably spend another $1 trillion in this war. but we do need to find a way to protect people from the scourge of terrorism. we will ask the panel to discuss this today. i will introduce thiall four ofr panelists first. there is a more extensive bio for each one of them on the flip side of your invitation. i will just touch on the highlights of these people. first is bruce widelrydell who a

senior fellow at the brookings institution and a former cia officer, who has also served at the department of defense and the national security council and has been a senior advisor to three american presidents on middle eastern questions and terrorism and political transition and conflict resolution. at the request of president obama, he chaired an interagency review to consider our policy toward afghanistan and pakistan this spring. in addition to this he is an author who is -- whose subject and the title is called the "search for al qaeda." and we also have peter burke, who i think is well known to many of you as a national

security analyst and an expert on terror and al qaeda. he has many other positions as well, for example, at new york university center for law and security. and has worked for other media outlets as well cnn, discovery channel, and national geographic -- and also has been an adjunct professor at the kennedy school at harvard in the last year. his books are well known. one of them is called "holy war inc.: inside the secret world of bin laden." it has been translated into 80 languages. and the other one is "the osama bin laden i know," which came out in 2006. and our third speaker is frank anderson, my colleague and the president of the middle east policy council, who has spent 27 years in the united states government working on middle east issues, and many of those

years in the middle east. he retired in 1995 as the chief of the near east and south asia division of the central intelligence agency. and since that time he has been providing consulting services to corporations on middle eastern issues. and finally, to my far right there is mark stedmasageman, the founder of sageman consulting. he has consulted for our government, many branches of our government, foreign governments, the new york police department'. he holds academic positions at the george washington year's end university of maryland. and he served in the central intelligence agency from 1984 to 1991, spending 1987 to 1989 in islamabad.

where he ran the u.s. unilateral programs with afghan mujahideen. he is also an author. his last two books were "understanding terror networks" and "a leaderless jihad. without any further ado, i would like to ask bruce to come to the podium. >> thank you for that very generous and kind introduction. it is a pleasure to be here. i have had the privilege of speaking to this forum before and is always a great honor to be here, especially in the neck of the sun room like this. let me begin with a disclaimer. although i was the chairman of the president's strategic review of policy toward afghanistan and pakistan last winter and spring, he lived up to his commitment to me.

it was temporary duty and i was freed in the beginning of april of 2009. i am not a spokesman for the u.s. government. please do not regard my remarks as in any way representing the views of either the president or the u.s. government. i speak only for myself. that said, what i would like to do is review for you very briefly the key conclusions of the review that i chaired, particularly on the substance of afghanistan, al qaeda, and a bit on pakistan, and then spend most of my time talking about the way forward and where we go from here and what we can expect. briefly put, president obama inherited a disaster. -- a disaster in afghanistan. a war that should have been 1 and finished in 2002 -- i should have been won and finished in two dozen to was not. instead of going after of

relentlessly, we drifted off to the mesopotamia about it. the consequence was our enemy was allowed to regroup and recover. the afghan state that we try to rebuild was gravely handicapped from the beginning. al qaeda was able to reestablish a safe haven, a sanctuary along the border between pakistan and afghanistan. and pakistan itself, a country of 170 million people with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal and the world, became increasingly and inevitably the sick -- destabilized by the spillover from afghanistan. let me look at the pieces just for a minute. al qaeda , in eight years of struggle against al qaeda, we have succeeded in moving its core leadership from kandahar, afghanistan's to a location

completely unknown. it is believed to be about 100 kilometers away somewhere in pakistan. but the truth is, despite the largest manhunt in history, we do not have a clue where osama bin laden is. we have not had eyes on target since tor barack. we hear his voice. we know he is there. -- since tora bora. we hear his voice. we know he is there. that makes the issue of how influential he is in al qaeda today all the more complex for analysts to understand. what we do know is that this al qaeda core has successfully embedded itself in what i call a syndicate of terrorist organizations in pakistan, the old afghan taliban at the new pakistan taliban, this is not a monolith.

al qaeda is a very, very small part of a much larger syndicate. it has no central direction. it has various different agendas. but one thing stands out. they cooperate with each other on a co-op -- on a practical level and so far, none of them have been willing to turn on high-value target number one. in the last year and a half, starting under the bush administration which deserves credit for building the program, we have begun to put significant pressure on al qaeda in pakistan through the use of the drones. the obama administration has escalated the use of the drones to about one attack a week. but as we saw in khost just in the last few days, the al qaeda court is far from defeated. they remain agile, resilienct ad

they remain deadly. if in fact the khost operation was the work of a triple agent, as many now seem to think, a travel agent operations are extraordinarily complex and difficult. this demonstrates the enemy we are dealing with is a very sophisticated and deadly one. and i will not spend a lot of time on the situation in afghanistan itself. general mcchrystal wrote a devastating and accurate report on the situation on the ground there and bob woodward was nice enough to allow all of us to have the opportunity to read it in depth. if you have not read it, i will urge you to do so. i will highlight one point, in the appendix where he talks about the detention facilities in afghanistan and he, in essence, says that the detention facilities in afghanistan are no longer under the control of the nato-isaf coalition.

as a practical matter, they are operated by the taliban and al qaeda and that is the radical process. when you have lost control of the prisons were you have put captured insurgents, you are in deep trouble and turning that around is at a difficult issue. but it is not a hopeless issue. afghanistan in 2010 is not afghanistan 1980. we are not the soviet union. and we do not face a national uprising like the soviet union faced. when we fought against the soviets in afghanistan, we have the benefit that virtually the entire afghan population was sympathetic to us. the uzbeks, tadzhiks, cazares, pashtun spaghetts.

the good news for us, though a majority of afghans are not pashtun. and even a majority of pashtun says do not want to see a return to the medieval held that was created in the second half of the 1990's. smart policies can still reversed the momentum here. just a word about pakistan -- pakistan is in the midst of an extraordinarily difficult transition from military dictatorship to democracy. we should support this transition enthusiastically, but we should recognize this is pakistan's fourth attempt at doing so. you have to believe in the triumph of hope over expectation to expect pakistan will get there, but it is in our interest to encourage them to do so.

because the pakistani military establishment over the years has proven incapable of running the country and has developed extensive, intimate ties with the syndicate of terror that i talked about that runs along the border lands, and now, deep into the heartland of pakistan. for a variety of reasons mostly dealing with india, the pakistani military establishment believes it must maintain at least parts of those relationships. in the last year, we have seen part of the jihadist frankenstein in pakistan actually turn against its old master. and today, pakistan is witnessing the most serious political violence in the country's history. it is bordering on civil war in many ways. the good news here is that the pakistani people seem to have increasingly come to the

conclusion that their freedoms and their way of life is truly threatened by this jihadist monster. that we kept -- that wake up is the best news we have seen in pakistan in a long time. where do we go next? first thing i would stress is we cannot be linkede-link pakistanm afghanistan. in fact, we cannot do that to its larger environment. if we are to succeed in afghanistan, whatever success means, it must be done in a larger regional environment. we will need to find ways to encourage all of afghanistan's neighbors to help in trying to stabilize this country. and we will need to get other countries to help us to stabilize and solidify civilian control in pakistan. the president has embarked upon what i would call a very bold

gamble. and there are no guarantees of success. this strategy requires a very delicate interplay of military, political, diplomatic, and economic activity, and all must be coordinated together to build a synthesis which brings about what we want to have happened. it will cost a great deal. an american soldier deployed to afghanistan cost about $1 million per person per year. and there is no economy of scale. if you send more, it is not cheaper. it gets more expensive. nicolasa cost in blood and in lives. -- it will also cost in blood and lives. the key for the long term in whether we succeed is whether we can build up an afghan national security force, a combination of army, police, and local

militias that can, for the long term, contained insurgencies in afghanistan -- including the taliban, but potentially other insurgencies in the future. afghan states have been able to do that in the past. it is a myth that afghanistan is in an governable space -- is an ungovernable space. that is bad history and that understanding of the situation. but it will be extraordinarily difficult to do, and we have had a significant setback in the last year. the afghan presidential election was also a disaster. we had vote fraud on extraordinary scale. 1 million fraudulent ballots. even by the standards of florida and illinois, that is cheating at a remarkable degree. worse than that, the perpetrators will cost and they got away with it.

the legitimacy of the afghan government in the eyes of the afghan people, and maybe more importantly in the eyes of americans and europeans who are sending their sons and daughters to fight their, has been severely crippled. if the president's strategy fails, i suspect we will look back and say the election dealt a fatal blow. but we must persevere in any case and see if we cannot work around it now. the president's decision is, in my view, the best of some very bad options. in many ways, he only really had three. option one, to cut and run. we can call it all kinds of different things -- downsize the mission, reorient the mission -- but nobody in afghanistan, and just as importantly nobody in

pakistan, would see it as anything other then, once more, the united states is backing up its bacgs and leaving us to deal with the results of a failed intervention. the second alternative was to stay where we were with exactly the forces and the equipment and the tactics that we had. americans are rightly afraid that afghanistan is going to turn into a quagmire. but i've got bad news for you, we are already in a quagmire. that is why the option of staying where we are is unacceptable. when you are waist deep in the big muddy, you cannot say i hope we will get into the swamp. we are in the swamp. we have to find a way to do it better. final word about pakistan, because while afghanistan is

very, very hard in many ways -- very, very hard, in many ways, pakistan is harder yet. we are trying to change the strategic direction of the country, a country that is an estimable lee more important in every way than afghanistan. trying to get pakistan back on a healthy course is vital not just for americans and afghans, but for indians, chinese, iranians, people over on the world. -- people all over the world. for 60 years, the united states has had a policy towards pakistan that has oscillated wildly between love affair and divorced. on some occasions we have been madly in love with pakistan's leaders. and we have turned our eyes away from all of their faults and throw money at them with no accountability. in other years, we have had

bitter an ugly divorces in which we have accused pakistan of all kinds of billills, cut off assistance, even assistance that was in our interest to provide. the result of this is simple, pakistanis have come to the conclusion that america is not a reliable ally because america has not been as a reliable ally. what america needs to do with pakistan is a policy of constancy and consistency, of cajoling and encouraging, of pressuring, of supporting, helping, correcting, of screaming at engagement at all times and at all levels, bearing in mind that we should always keep the civilian government at the top of the agenda of who we deal with. the states in afghanistan and pakistan today are enormous.

there are enormous not just in south asia, but for americans. this is the place from which the attack of september 11 was planned and coordinated. recent events have underscored the risk we continue to run. they may have been orchestrated in yemen this time, but the head of the stake, as far as we know, remains in pakistan and afghanistan. but the stakes are also enormous for this president. wars consumed presidencies. -- wars consume presidencies. this is now america's longest war and is bound to consume this presidency as well. the president's advisers, many of whom were about domestic issues and health care and rebuilding the that badly damaged american economy, for

good reasons do not want to see america bogged down in an endless war in afghanistan. but that is what they inherited and that is what they have to fix in the three years ahead that they still have. thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> thank you very much for this invitation to speak at the middle east council and to be on this distinguished panel. i wanted to start with some data about what afghans' think about afghanistan, because there is much discussion about what we think. i think it is helpful to also take into account their opinions. there have been country-wide polls in afghanistan by all

sorts of organizations, the international republican institute, bbc news, asia society -- these polls are conducted nationwide on a scientific basis and are done every year starting in 2005, in the case of the bbc poll. when asked what is your view of the united states in afghanistan, according to the bbc, 68% of the afghans think the united states in afghanistan is either doing a fair, good, or excellent job. when asked about the same question about nato-isaf, 70% about can't say that they are doing a good, fair or excellent -- of afghans say that they are doing a good, fair or excellent job. 32% would prefer to be ruled by the current government and only 4% say they would prefer to be looked about -- will buy the taliban. there's nothing -- to be ruled

by the taliban. 7% -- the taliban usually gets its 7% favorable rating in polls going back to 2005. is the national government doing a good job? in 2009, 71% said yes. was it mostly good or very good, according to the bbc, that the united states over through the taliban? last year, 69% said yes. perhaps the most astonishing figure, what is your view of the united states military? this is last year from the bbc. 63% stronger -- strongly support or somewhat support the united states in afghanistan. the afghans want this to work. they are not opposed to

international forces. by the way, exactly the same organizations routinely also pull in pakistan and to those who say you cannot trust polling data in afghanistan, exec with the same organizations routinely pulled in pakistan and consistently find it to be one of the most anti-american countries in the world. i believe both polls. i believe pakistan is a pretty anti-american country. we are conducting a counterinsurgency in afghanistan. it was the is central doctrine in afghanistan? it is the gravity of the population given that the population is at least half or more on our side, there are grounds to think this will be a successful effort. we spent something like 18 times more per capita in bosnia and in kosovo compared to what we did in afghanistan after world war ii. we got what we paid for, we did

it on the cheap. let me make seven or eight quick points about what we are doing in afghanistan. i believe there are a lot of myths out there. bruce very ably are the addressed the soviet issue. this is not a graveyard of empires. all sorts of empires have gone in net -- into afghanistan, but unlike most of those other invasions, the afghans do want us to perform. and to compare our occupation to the soviets is poor history on so many other levels. bruce mentioned the fact that there was a country-wide insurrection. every group of our request was involved in the insurrection. at any given moment there were 175,000 or 250,000 approximately full-time soldiers on the battlefield fighting the soviets.

even if you take the largest numbers of full-time taliban soldiers is 20,000. we are facing a relatively small insurgency compared to what the soviets face. this will not be obama's vietnam. this is a crazy comparison. it might be his and afghanistan, that is a separate issue. the soviets have -- it was a major problem for the united states. at the height of the violence in vietnam, 154 american soldiers were being killed every four days. that is the same number that were killed last year in afghanistan. that analogy does not work in this case. and the idea that afghanistan is not a nation state is absolutely ridiculous. in 1747, the for -- the federation was founded which was the beginning of afghanistan as a nation. that makes it an older nation

than the united states. generally speaking, it has had a weak central state, and that -- there is nothing really wrong with that. trying to impose a very top down central state has been part of the problem, i think. related to that, the most popular institution in afghanistan, scoring enormously high numbers is the afghan national army, which is obviously our ticket out, building that up. but when asked which institution you most admire, 82% say the afghan national army, which is seen as not operating in any particular ethnic interest and is seen as an institution that is really doing really good work. the other, and is that afghanistan is too hard or too violent. this is also completely ridiculous. you're more likely to be murdered in the united states in 1991 than in the afghan war today. the murder rate in the united states in 1991, 24,000 murders

in 1991 in the u.s. population, let's say, roughly 260 million. last year in the violence in afghanistan, something like 2000 civilians died in the violence. the population is roughly 30 million. you are basically as likely to be murdered in the united states as a tourist in 1991 than in afghanistan today. which is not to say there is not a problem. by the way, you are 20 times more likely to be killed at the height of the violence in iraq. this is nothing like iraq or anything close to it. the populations of the two countries are roughly the same. the idea that afghans are resistant to foreigners, 63% favor the u.s. military. that speaks for itself. why should it be a success,

other than the fact that the population is on our side? what is your view of the future? when americans were asked this question at the tail end of the bush administration in the middle of this recession, only 17% had a favorable view of the future u.s. afghans, and 27% have a favorable view. the reason that afghans had that answer is that this all looks a lot better than what they have lived through. if you think of a country in history that has lived three soviet occupation and the communist government, then warlord is some and then the taliban, each one of these would be devastating to a country. even though we know all the problems that have existed in afghanistan, still, what is going on today is better than what has gone on in the past. 4.5 million refugees over time -- there were 4 million refugees that left iraq as a result of

the occupation and the civil war. almost none have returned. several hundred thousand, if you're being generous. refugees do not return to places they do not have a future. millions are in school, including girls, obviously. when asked if you have more freedom under the taliban, a recent poll -- if you have more freedom than under the taliban, a recent poll said sabina% said yes. there is still a problem of pakistan, which brews has already discussed. -- which bruce has already discussed. if you take together the death of this year bhutto, who was the most popular politician pakistan's history and would have scored a landslide victory, take back together with the attack on the cricket team -- which critics been a religious event in pakistan -- take to get of the 17-year-old girl being

flawed by the taliban -- being flogged by the taliban, which was widely distributed in pakistan, and the several bombings -- taken together, and you find that pakistanis support for the suicide bomber is cratering. for instance, 33% several years ago thought it was ok, suicide bombing. that has now dropped to 5%. they cannot conduct a war in their own country against elements of their population without the support of their own propagation. and they did not have that. in 2005 and 2006, these were performance art operations that were designed to satisfy the u.s.. to the operations today are real operations. -- the operations today are real

operations. pakistan is changing. will they go after the taliban or al qaeda? who knows? the close alignment between the american strategic objectives and pakistani strategic objectives have been achieved since the soviets invaded in 1929. two final statements. the train has left the station, but i think is important -- because the president has already made his decision. but doing less, the cut and run option that bruce manchin, or doing it lighter -- that bruce mentioned, or doing it lighter, we have to consider that we have already done the do nothing option in the 1980's. into that vacuum is that the taliban and al qaeda.

and then doing it letter, we saw that during the bush administration and the taliban and al qaeda came back more tactically. the final point, i think we can divine down some of our goals in afghanistan in import way based on what the afghans actually want. they do not necessarily want particularly to the legitimate government. i mean, we all want legitimate government as a desirable goal, but we -- they have not had much experience. the warlords did not bring security and obviously the the surge did not endorse the insurgency did not bring legitimacy. i think the new obama plan will deliver security. and they are looking for security. one final piece of data pulling was, what is your principal concern? 34% said security and only 4% said corruption. the new plan can't deliver a

security. after all, why did the taliban come to power? the one good they did deliver was security. if we can deliver security and other things in addition, which we will, then that is a plan for progress in afghanistan. thank you. [applause] >> first, let me repeat tom's words of thanks to everyone for coming. and in the interest of time i will get right at this. bruce and i were speaking as i came in and remembering that in some form or another, i had engaged in or working on afghanistan for 27 years.

and i probably read everything that comes out, at least in the english language, on the subject. i have recently traveled there and will again. i suppose i have become an expert. from the point of view of policy prescriptions, the more i know, the less i understand. and i must say that in 1982 i had easy explanations for what the united states ought to do in afghanistan. they are much less easily at hand now. afghanistan is a dizzilingly complex place.

its relationship with its other neighbors is almost impossible to easily fix, or even describe. it is culturally and come politically complex -- and politically complex in that every time i look at the place i find another level of social organization that i did not know about before. in this complexity, and i'm going to go to the words of the development activist from npr in afghanistan who said, you cannot analyze it. you have to experience it to the point where you developed intimacy. and that intimacy -- numbers are often not that useful. it is just repeated experience and reflection. my experience and reflection now bring me to a couple of memories, and one of them comes

as surprisingly not from a deal politician or a government person, but a pop psychology book in the 1960's called "games people play." one of the games people play is, let's you and him fight. in my government experience, it was the essential game of the cold war. we fought by proxies ended was led u.n. him fight. in afghanistan, every time it is invaded, everytime it interacts with the states from outside, there is a complex game of let's you and him a fight that goes on. in order not to be drawn into it, once again, you have to develop intimacy. my sources for intimacy and understanding are those that i want to point out today. i do not have any prescriptions.

interestingly, a poet, a journalist, development activist, and a wanderer. the poet is richard kiplingerud. i will remind you of his from "and arithmetic on the frontier ." he begins with some dismay at the british determination that one has to be educated expensively before you are regarded as qualified to face the foe. but then he describes a scrimmage at a border station that canter down some dark to file some 2,000 pounds of education. a couple of lines later, strike hard who cares, shoot straight who can. the odds are on the cheaper man.

and then he points out that one sword not stolen from a camp will pay all the school expenses of any scamp. but nevertheless, these people who know words, been blessed with perfect site, pick off our mismates left and right. something that we should be painfully reminiscent of, his line "with homebred hordes the hillside steen, the troopships bring us one by one, the vax -- the vast expanse of time and stephen." and his last line is, "the captives of our bowling spirit are cheap, alas, as we are dear ." in my experience in government and in life, it absolutely support his judgment that the odds are on the cheaper man.

not an afghan experience, but an early experience with the 1980 failed plan to rescue hostages at our embassy in iran and loss of -- lots of military history reading that the odds are on the simpler plan. our 1980's involvement in afghanistan against the soviets definitely put us on the side of the cheaper man. it was very expensive, even then, for the soviets with proximity to get and support their people there. they had no requirement -- or we had no requirement to recruit or train or transmit border forces in afghanistan. at that time, the hillsides tinged with hordes that flocked to the fight. -- teemed with cords that

flocked to the fight. and our plan was simple and time proven. it was to make life so miserable and costly for the soviets that they would pack up and leave. all we had to do was provide guns, ammunition, and a surprisingly small amount of cash to those teen hordes. we did have to operate a relatively long and expensive ply line -- a supply line. but our challenges were simple compared to the soviets. as an aside, i think we have been strongly and justifiably criticized for not picking up the more complex and costly in a long run job of pose conflict development. the result was afghanistan became further into chaos in

which the taliban were the only option. the broad protection to the people of afghanistan and they managed to conquer it not true fighting, but negotiation. and as a -- as ugly as it was, they did provide the security to the people, except for themselves, until they went the way of every recent political force in afghanistan. they became more rapacious, uglier in all, and the people of afghanistan welcome us with nato forces when we returned in 2001. i believe that our failure since 2001 is less of being diverted then it is of being mired down in expense and complexity.

in the very beginning, the game of let's you and him fight was played to our detriment. in the book of good the punishment of virtue" the author does a good job -- in the book "punishment of virtue" the author does a good job in showing how the appointment of canada arkandahar, the presidenf afghanistan had appointed to he believed to be the right man and had the paramilitary force behind him to take the job. u.s. special forces, on the other hand, got engaged in appointing a treble rival because we lost that game of let's you and him fight. all he had to do was point and call taliban to the other guy.

our continued complexity and cost -- we need reform, or transformation, in pakistan in order to succeed. the soviets needed to transform afghan society in order to succeed. the taliban and our other enemies do not need to transform this society. right now, as bruce has pointed out, the leader of the government we are seeking to develop is providing, at best, lukewarm support to our reform agenda. and there is a complaint that he is actively obstructing it. . .

>> forget the complexity of pakistan. pakistan and india are pursuing programs that each of them believe is inimical to the interests of the other. pakistan has many reasons to believe that our ends and there's in afghanistan are in conflict. not all of those reasons are legitimate. our efforts to develop a core of people who have the language, the cultural understanding and that they can have this intimacy are being frustrated. we have just been treated to the

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff rebuking the service chiefs because they were unable to come up with 1/4 of the required 900 members of an afghan-pakistan expertise corps. we are being dragged in place after place in afghanistan of let's you and him fight. the pushtun minority in afghanistan is increasingly being led to believe or believes that we are supporting a civil war on behalf of other ethnic groups p. a visit to a camp in its downtown kabul and a walk around the u.s. embassy where most walls have pictures of massoud would indicate wrongly, but still, i think it is a visible sign to any pashtun walking

around that we are on the other side. let me go back again to my sources of intimacy and recommend to you the book "the punishment of a virtue." she spent a good bit of her life in the last eight years -- the book centers on the incident which i described where a u.s. special operator blocked karzai's plan to governor for kabul. she interweaves a very well- written and interestingly a history that is a well-written, well-organized and based on her own research with original sources. a second really important understanding of the country can be gotten from the book "the opium season," which details a

year in which he was involved as a -- a subcontractor in u.s.a.i.d. efforts in 2004-2005 to provide alternative livelihood's to draw with a workforce from opium production. it gives a view of the violence, tribal and warlord relations, and moreover, it shows the bureaucratic profiteering and dysfunction that is increasing the complexity and cost of our involvement, not just in war, but in development. a third source, and i think it is outstanding if you want to understand the country is stored, who within weeks after the fall of the taliban locked to kabul in the winter, which is supposed to kill you -- what to

kabul in the winter, which is supposed to value and described the bill which experience in a week -- and described that experience in a way in which any development expert must read before he attempts to understand afghanistan. in terms of policy prescriptions, these three people who can be accused of an intimate understanding, are not advocates of cut and run. their prescriptions, as peter pointed out, as per se pointed out, -- as bruce pointed out, are based on security for the people of afghanistan. the security must only be from the taliban, but the security must be from the ordinance of the state that we are seeking to advance and stabilize.

rory's comment -- and i running out of time? ok. that we do have a possibility for more realistic and sustainable process that would not make afghanistan unstable or predictable. it would merely be a small but necessary part of an afghan political strategy. u.s. allies -- and its allies would only moderate, influence and fund the strategies led by afghans themselves. we have to come up with a way to do that simply. and that simplicity has to be based on an intimate understanding of these folks so that we can stop losing the game of let's you and him fight. looking forward, the next 18 months, i do not believe, and i am late to this, that we ought to cut and run.

if you asked me a few months ago, i would have said get out. i do believe that we must transform ourselves. we have got some help to get to the point where we can afford this involvement. notwithstanding polls in afghanistan, pulls in the united states indicate that we have a limited time in which we can continue to invest blood and treasure. we have to address our structural problems and incumbencies. i do not know if we can do this. the way that we have gone to war -- there are thick field manuals and regulations, army regulations on how to deal with contractors on the battlefield. the united states agency for international development no longer has anybody, i think, or few people who go out and run a project. everyone in the agency interacts

with a contractor. i won a contract myself to the office of the secretary of defense. it is a well-conceived and well- executed program. it costs three or four times what it would cost if government employees were carrying it out. our own political system is not going to be changed in the coming years, but it is one of the incompetency is with which we have to struggle. i believe that the president's ability to reformulate strategy in the last few months was hampered almost to the point of the possibility by the other side. failing never to pick up the cudgel that you and your campaign described this as the

good work. ar. make it a good one. i must say that the last administration was be about the head, neck and shoulders by the democrat party. -- to formulate a policy. the partisan shots are not just unseemly. they are innovating. -- innervating. other systems in our effort to reduce opium production in afghanistan were hampered by u.s. agricultural interests that will not let us promote the production of cotton. got to fix it. two things we have got to address in order to simplify

this. we have to get outside the box. you have got to solve this in a regional way. some opportunities are rising zero. interestingly, csis came out with a point that our efforts to establish an alternative logistics plan through as pakistan are creating new relationships that might grow into a moderate silk road that could be an engine for development in the region. -- through uzbekistan. as time goes on, i am less confident in my ability to provide policy prescriptions. i can only say that the ones we are trying to carry out now are far too complex and far too costly to succeed in the time we have available. thank you.

>> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me here. i want to start with a disclaimer. i completely agree with frank. the more i learned from personal experience and from extensive studies on afghanistan, the less i know. so with that in mind, i hope you will indulge me and perhaps listen to what i have to say. first of all, we are not dealing with a war. we are dealing with two wars. and when nobody -- one nobody talks about. the one that is the most important, and they are disconnected and independent of each other -- the one no one talks about is the war fought right here in washington, d.c., within the beltway. this will have far more impact

on whatever is happening in afghanistan that probably what is happening in afghanistan itself. because this war is fought on the field of polemical exaggeration and hysteria, obfuscating terms that actually hide the reality under current -- on the ground in afghanistan. it is driven by naked political ambition, rather than international interest. and at least two very strange bedfellows, as we sri that -- we see right now with the president has found more support with republicans than he has with his own party. what is the surge going to do? it is going to increase opposition to the war, as we have seen already. and not only with in this country but also within europe, where our nato allies are right there with us. and this, of course, like frank mentioned, gives us a limited

time to do something. because, with the surge, we are going to see an increased number of deaths. we are. to see the images of body bags being flown back. and the number of deaths, not just ours but the debts of afghans, will paradoxically increase domestic terrorism, both in this country and in the west, because of the moral outrage. i can only refer you to what happened at two months ago with a major hasan killing people in ft. hood. the surge will accelerate our withdrawal from afghanistan, especially by 2012, because it is going to be a huge issue in

the presidential election. much of it will depend in what will happen in our election 10 months from now to see how much the democrats are going to lose in congress. enough about washington, d.c. what about afghanistan itself? well, there are the view -- there are four issues, and they are not totally linked. in a sense, they have some independence. it is afghanistan, pakistan, taliban, and al qaeda. i do not have the time to get into pakistan, because of limited time, but it probably will depend on internal factors within pakistan. in terms of afghanistan, let me repeat several times we do not

have any vital interest in afghanistan. period. we do not have any vital interest except for domestic national security. that is why we are in afghanistan. we are looking very closely to yemen right now. 10 years ago, we would have never been looking at the sudan. and we are looking closely at somalia. we do not have any vital interest in afghanistan itself except for domestic national security interests. that leads to the next question. what is the threat here in the united states or in the west? i have done a comprehensive survey of all al qaeda plots, successful and unsuccessful in the west in the last 20 years since the creation of al qaeda. there has been no al qaeda resurgence as trumpeted three

years ago by people on this panel. there have only been two plots in the last three years to link to al qaeda -- denmark in 2004, and new york and denver. there has been no fatality in the west link to al qaeda in its nearly five years in the west. if you look at the plots, over 80% are home grown without any relationship to any terrorist organization. and those that have some relationship to any terrorist organization, it is no longer al qaeda. it is the iju,. it was ttp, terek taliban in

pakistan, the bourse a lot of plot. -- the barcelone plot. the one who tried to kill the cartoonist in denmark last week. people are always afraid of the ai in the north -- aqim in north africa. there are almost no al qaeda in afghanistan. if we trace back plots that have any connection to terrorist groups in the west in the last eight years, we see that nine are traced back to afghanistan. -- none car traced back to afghanistan. there were all traced back to pakistan and now to yemen in somalia. so, in order to promote national security here, we need

to focus on the group that can project to the west. and those are the groups i just mentioned. the afghan insurgents do not project to the west. they have a domestic agenda. ok, so, what our our stated goals for being in afghanistan? to disrupt, dismantle, defeat al qaeda and its allies. this is mostly done for the destruction and dismantling in afghanistan. they have moved to the fatah, as pointed out by bruce. we have not defeated al qaeda. al qaeda was not dead, as was shown last week by the killing of the cia officers. ok, so what is the search going to do for us for the next 18 months? -- the surge going to do for us?

it will be very on even. it will depend on the implementation of what we do and it will vary according to the locality in afghanistan. it is not going to be even. some of them will be good, and those will be trumpeted in washington. and those that will be bad will be trumpeted in washington because you have two camps. what we really should be doing -- be able to do is to isolate the foreigners, mainly al qaeda and foreign terrorist groups, from the locals, especially from the taliban. this is much easier than defeating the taliban. but now that we are in afghanistan, what is our goal there? our goal is threefold and they are all political. one is to provide security. second is to help them develop

good governance. third, to stimulate their economy. let's look at each one in turn. in terms of security, i believe the surge will improve security and perhaps it may even temporarily prevent a civil war with in afghanistan. in terms of good governance, and what do i mean by good governments? a provision of the administration to provide justice, something the taliban did fairly well. which is why it had some popularity. people now have mr. l. shot about that, despite what peters says. -- nostalgia. they do not like the taliban, but they did like the fairness

and lack of corruption. they want to decrease the corruption and nepotism that is paralyzing local initiatives. unfortunately for us, this is up to the afghans to do. we cannot impose our institution from the top. from my own experience with the afghan, and i was in contact very intensively with them day to day for three years, you realize the limits of your power with them. it can really control them. -- you cannot really control them. i had a wad of cash to give them. you can see the limits of your influence on the afghans. you can push them gently in that goal.

and so we have to be very cognizant of are all limitation because this is very much an afghan issue. thirdly, we need to stimulate their economy. that means they have to develop jobs and a sense of purpose. this is dependent on good leadership, which is absent, as bruce told you. their leader has very little legitimacy because of the disaster of the election. and leadership weekend provide. this led me to go back and review -- leadership which we can provide. this led me to review soviet leadership for 10 years. i was intimately involved in running the war against the soviets for three years. i do not have to underestimate your enemy. we should not repeat their mistakes. we should learn that from their mistakes.

what did the soviets have? they had an advantage. they were dealing with a less- corrupt afghan government in dealing with fairly strong leadership, as soon as they got rid of the leader and put another leader as the president. and they did not have any pressure from domestic protests, because they basically had the body bag. they did not tell the population how many people they lost during the war until after the war. they were careful about that. they developed a fairly efficient and effective counterinsurgency doctrine after 1986. they learned from their mistakes. what they did is exactly what we are suggesting right now.

which was a surprise, because it was a fairly sophisticated. they were preaching national reconciliation. and achieved a bit of success with it. they withdrew from the countryside, consolidating the cities and provided securities in the cities and the roadways for most of the time they were there. i know because i was frustrated. i was trying to disrupt the security from my side. they encouraged armed local militias in order to frustrate me and my colleagues. and they were pretty good. they also had a fairly decent administration for dispensing justice for conflict resolution and they built roads. they built schools.

they build factories, they build hospitals. that sounds really familiar. well, what did that give them? that gave them a decent interval of three years from that time they were true to that time when najib fell. and that decent interval lasted as long as the leader from the soviet union and his support flowed from the soviet union. as soon as yeltsin took over, the support fell within months. we had an advantage over the soviets. the war was very unpopular. we had professional soldiers and the morale was much higher than the soviet army. we do not have a super power on the other side supporting the resistance. there are no stingers. can you imagine what would happen right now if the taliban

had stingers to shoot down our helicopters? it would be a disaster. and we have not killed as many civilians as the soviets did. they probably killed close to 1 million people, which earned them a tremendous impact -- on popularity. -- unpopularity. what will happen in 18 months? we are going to withdraw, mostly by 2012, because of the election, secondary to the war within the beltway. we will increase security in afghanistan, but the question mark is well that security be enough to allow the afghans to take responsibility for their future and to develop their own country? that is really the key issue. i am fairly pessimistic, because it depends on having a good afghan partner and right now i

do not think we have it yet. karzai lacks legitimacy and is unpopular in his country. this really will depend on achieving security, which i think is achievable, but governments which is a big question mark, and and with -- and with good government comes with our own money, investment for jobs, jobs, jobs. without jobs, afghanistan will not be a positive scenario in the future. but saying that, i must conclude by pointing out that this is not going to affect our domestic national security. as we see with the last three plots, the underwear, came from yemen.

-- the underwear bomber came from nigeria and london. the attack on the danish cartoonist came from somalia. and hasan came from washington, d.c. thank you very much. >> peter has to leave at 11:00, so he should take the first few questions. there is a microphone in the back of the room. >> i worked some 30 years as a

journalist in the united states. i retired two years ago. my question is for peter, specifically. what i hear now in this seminar in the last -- and the last few, exactly what i was hearing before the iraq war. and the premise was that we will be hailed as liberators because saddam hussein was on popular. -- unpopular. that we will have a secular democracy. now it is an islamic system. have you really tested the have practices somewhere -- hypothsiesis somewhere that we

are not the soviets? that afghan people love us? i am told that the other speaker was comparing afghanistan, our presence in afghanistan to the soviet presence in afghanistan. they were doing exactly the same thing that we are trying to do. i would just mentioned i was born in india. the british were doing the same thing in india. they develop, build roads, schools, and it said india's to britain for education. and invested in it that blessings of the western civilization. my question is are we not doing the same thing? are the imperial powers doing as they did? believing their own premises

without testing what afghans are doing. i visited twice pakistan in the last three years. i heard them say that this is the same jihad against foreigners that we fought in the 19 eighties now against americans. >> thank you. -- in the '80s now against the americans. >> are we making the same mistakes as the soviets? are we making the same mistakes as we did in iraq? the difference between the soviet occupation -- and there are 42 other countries involved in the effort in afghanistan are like night and day. it is important to remember that 1.5 million afghans were killed by the soviets. 5 million became refugees. it was the largest refugee population in history at the time. the soviets left the most heavily mined country in the

world. to compare this to what is happening today is really not very good history. on the issue of is it similar to what we were doing in iraq in 2003, are the arguments similar? the more relevant question is what are the similarities to where we were in iraq when a surge was a question of great interest to policymakers? and think about the iraq search for a second. the surge which i oppose along with everyone else on this panel, i thought was doubling down on a bad bet. i opposed it because of a lack of knowledge of what was going on in iraq. we went into one of the nastiest civil wars in modern history. the ministry of the interior was a shia death squad. no matter how bad the afghan situation, it is not embroiled in a civil war, nor is the

government a sectarian entity as the government of iraq was at the time. this surge is going into a much better situation that existed in iraq. and addressing the american domestic -- what -- americans do not care. let me refreeze that. americans are much more casualty of verse that most people expect. -- averse than most people expect. what americans do not like is losing. it is almost a non issue that it seems to be stabilizing. if the surge brings more security and american feels like there is more progress being made, the casualties that come with that will be dealt with politically in a way that will be handled. the worst months were six months after the surge in iraq.

as the situation stabilized, the american domestic political scene changed. i think you'll see the same thing in afghanistan. >> we are leaving this recorded program to go live to the white house to hear president obama talks about a declassified report on the attempted christmas day bombing. we plan to open our phone lines to take your calls after the president speaks. and the white house speaker -- briefing with janet napolitano and john brennan is about -- is scheduled for 5:15 eastern time. we will also have live coverage of that. this is c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good afternoon, everybody. the immediate reviews that i ordered after the failed christmas terrorist attack are now complete. i was briefed on the findings and recommendations for reform, and i believe it is important

the american people understand the steps we are taking to prevent attacks. this afternoon, my counter- terrorism and homeland security adviser john brennan will discuss his review into our terrorist watch list system, how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for america and the steps we will take to prevent that from happening again. janet napolitano will discuss her review of aviation screening, technology and procedures. how that terrorists boarded a plane with explosives that could have killed 300 innocent people and how we will strengthen aviation security going for. today, i want to summarize their conclusions and the steps i have ordered to address them. in our ever-changing world, america's first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed and acted upon quickly

and effectively. that is what the intelligence reforms after the 9/11 attacks achieved. that is what our intelligence community does every day. unfortunately, that is not what happened in the lead up to christmas day. it is now clear that shortcomings occurred in three broad and compound in ways. first, although our intelligence community have learned a great deal about the al qaeda affiliate in yemen, called al qaeda in the caribbean peninsula, we knew they saw to strike the united states and were recruiting operatives to do so. the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up and prioritize streams of information related to a possible attack against the homeland. second, this contributed to a larger failure analysis, a failure to connect the dots of intelligence that existed across our intelligence community and which together could have

revealed that abdul mutallab was planning an attack. third, this in turn fed into shortcomings in the watch listing system which resulted in this person not being placed on the no-fly list, thereby, allowing him to board that plane in amsterdam for detroit. in summary, the u.s. government had the information scattered throughout the system to potentially on the cover this plot and disrupt the attack rather than of failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had. and that is why we took swift action in the days following christmas, including updating the terrorist watch list system and adding more individuals to the no-fly list and directing our embassies to include current visa information in their warnings of individuals with a suspected terrorist ties. today i am directing a series of

additional corrective steps across multiple agencies. they fall into four areas. first, i am directing that our intelligence community began assigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively. not just most of the time, but all of the time. we must follow the leads that we get. and we must pursue them until plots are disrupted. and that means assigning clear lines of responsibility. second, i am directing that intelligence reports, especially potential threats to united states, be distributed more rapidly and widely. we cannot sit on information that could protect the american people. third, i am directing we strengthen the analytical process. how are and alice -- our analyst process and integrate the intelligence they receive. my director of national

intelligence will take the lead. my intelligence advisory board will examine the longer-term challenge of sifting through vast universes' of intelligence and data in our information age. finally, i am ordering an immediate effort to strengthen the criteria used to add individuals to our terrorist watch list, especially the no- fly list. we must do better in keeping dangerous people off airplanes while facilitating air travel. taken together, these reforms will improve the intelligence communities ability to collect, share, analyze and act on intelligence swiftly and effectively. in short, they will help our intelligence community do its job better and protect american lives. but even the best intelligence cannot identify in advance every individual who would do us harm. so we need to add the security at our airports, ports and borders and through our

partnerships with other nations to prevent terrorists from entering america. at the amsterdam airport, abdul mutallab was subject -- subjected to the same screening as other passengers. he was required to show his documents, including a valid u.s. visa. his carry-on was x-ray. he passed through a metal detector. but it cannot detect the kind of explosives down into his close. -- dewn into his clothes. the screening technologies that might have detected these explosives are in use at the amsterdam airport, but not at the security check. he passed through. most airports in the united states do not yet have this technology. it will require significant investments in many areas. that is why, even before the christmas attack, we increased investments in homeland

security and aviation security. this includes $1 billion in new systems and technologies that we need to protect our airports -- more passenger and baggage screening and more advanced explosive detection capabilities, including those to improve our ability to detect explosive used on christmas. these are major investments and they will make our skies safer and more secure. as i announced this week, we have taken a range of steps to improve aviation screening, including new rules for how we handle pieces and enhanced screening for passengers flying from or through certain countries. i am directing the department of homeland security take additional steps, including strengthening our international partnership to improve aviation is screening all around the world, greater use of the advance explosive detection we have, and working with the department of department of

energy -- working with the department of energy and our last to improve the next generation of screening technology. there is no foolproof solution. as we develop new technologies and procedures, our editor -- adversaries will seek new ways to evade them. in the never ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead. that is what these steps are designed to do. we will work with congress to ensure our intelligence and law- enforcement communities have the resources they need to keep the american people say. i ordered these immediate reviews so we could take immediate action to secure our country. in the weeks and months ahead, we will continue a sustained and intensive effort of analysis so that we leave no stone unturned in seeking better ways to protect the american people. i have repeatedly made it clear, in public with the american people and in private

with my national security team, that i will hold my staff, our agencies, and the people in them accountable when they fail to perform the responsibilities at the highest levels. at this stage in the review process, it appears this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies. that is why in addition to the corrective efforts by of order, i directed agency heads to establish internal accountability reviews and directed my national security staff to monitor their efforts. we will measure progress. john brennan will report back to me within 30 days and on a regular basis after that. all of these agencies and their leaders are responsible for implementing these reforms and all will be held accountable if they do not. moreover, i am less interested in passing out blame it than i am and learning from and

correcting these mistakes to make us safer. ultimately, the buck stops with me. as president, i have a responsibility to protect our nation and our people and when the system fails is my responsibility. over the past two weeks, we have been reminded of the challenge we face in protecting our country against of vote that is bent on our destruction. while politics can obscure the hard work before us, let us be clear about what this moment demands. we are at work. we are at war against al qaeda, a far reaching network that detectives on 9/11, that killed 3000 innocent people and is plotting to strike again. we will do whatever it takes to defeat them. we have made progress. al qaeda's leadership has hunkered down. we have worked with partners including yemen to inflate blows against al qaeda leaders. we have disrupted plots at home and abroad to save american lives.

we know the vast majority of muslims reject al qaeda. but it is clear that al qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals with out known terrorist affiliations, not just in the middle east but in africa and other places, to do their bidding that is why i directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the challenges posed by these recruits. that is why we must communicate clearly to the muslims or around the world that al qaeda offers nothing but a bankrupt vision of misery and death, including the murder of fellow muslims. the u.s. stance with those who seek justice and progress. to advance that progress, we have saw new beginnings with muslim communities all around the world. we work together to fulfil the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security. that is what america believes

in. that is the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these extremists. here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifice is the open society and liberties we cherish as americans. because great and proud nations do not hide behind loss of suspicion and mistrust. that is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as i am president, we will never hand them that victory. we will define the character of our country. not some and a small man intent on killing innocent men and will show -- and children. that involves every american and every elected official can do our part. instead of giving into division, let's move forward with optimism and unity that defines us as a people. now is not a time for partisanship. it is a time for citizenship. a time to work together. that is what it means to be

strong in the face of violent extremism. that is how we will prevail in this fight. and that is how we will protect our country and has faced -- pass it safer and stronger to the next generation. thank you very much. host: the president from the state dining room of the white house, two days after a meeting with his team. the unclassified member -- parts of the report put forward from his homeland security advisers. we want to get your reaction here on c-span to the president's comments. we will hear more details from homeland security janet napolitano and others in the next half-hour. they will brief and the white house briefing room. our line for democrats is 202- 737-0002.

our line for republicans is 202-585-3886. the president again saying that the buck stops with him, indicating that no one will be fired but there will be a review process that will continue over the next 30 days and beyond it to make sure the information is passed on. the president saying the failure was not in collecting the information but sharing information and connecting the dots. carol and joining us from springfield, illinois. you are on c-span. are you with us? we will go to janesville, wisconsin. caller: i would like to know when the president is going to stop wasting our time and our money. why have they not contacted al el turnaround -- they do not

have problems with their flights. all they are doing is spending time and money. it reminds me of the war on drugs. have they ever solved that problem? host: what you think needs to be done? caller: i would contact ael al and copy their exact security system for their airlines. are we such a big country that we do not want to know how everything is working with other countries? because it is working there. host: we will go to the independent line. joining us from california. your reaction. caller: i was on the independent line. my reaction is, i think the president is doing a great job, but i think there does need to be some more work done to strengthen the connections for

the dots everyone keeps talking about. host: how do you do that? caller: i am not an expert, but i would say you can probably bring the leaders of each organization it that you need to connect the dots with, sit down and brainstorm. otherwise, i would not know what else to do. host: john from connecticut on the democrats' line. caller: you know what pisses me off. there are too many immigrants and to all many people in our country. you know the people who bombed the playing it -- you have too many people in our country. close the border. close and up. host: if you do get through,

close the volume down, so we can hear what you have to say. on the democrats' line. afternoon. caller: i think the president did a good job in explaining where we are in this war. i think he took full responsibility for what is happening now and moving with the new situation in trying to reorganize these agencies to do a better job of securing the nation. having said that, i think -- i do not know how much money that terrorists or people that plot, do the bombings and spectacular events. it seems like we almost always overreact and spend billions of dollars and get little result. i just do not know where that equation is going to take us in this nation. i hope we do not bankrupt ourselves. host: you heard from the president that the amount of money we have spent and he

indicated that some of the technologies we need it will cost taxpayers more money. caller: i know, and that concerns me. we want to be safe. how much more money does it take -- the bang for the but we are spending now, it seems we are no is -- not as safe as we were on 9/11. people are sitting in their seats with their hands open on their laps -- it is ludicrous. it will not make us feel better. basically, the information technology to identify these people before they get to the airport. once they are there, this person could have went to the bathroom and done the same thing. nobody would have then there. do we sit in our seats on these eight-hour flights? that is not practical. host: if you are joining us, the day began with the president expected to make the announcements you heard at 1:00.

it was then moved to 3:00 and further postponed to just passed for clock 30 eastern time in washington, d.c., and we will be hearing from the homeland security team in 15 or 20 minutes from the briefing room from the white house. this is been pushed back with a series of meetings going on at the white house, as the administration formulates its response and release of information, much of it classified. what is being released by the white house is on classified with what they learned in the review process from december 25 to today. mesa, arizona. caller: i was listening to the speech, and i have listened on everything, on your station on fox news, on cnn. he is taken a little bit of what everybody says. he needs to say the buck stops here, like truman.

he did that today. he needs to say this -- i think heads need to roll. this is one scary thing. i am tired of being so politically correct. you know why israel does good? they are not politically correct. do you know why china does good? they are not politically correct. it is time for america to stand up for america. i am getting tired of this. something bad is going to happen to our country and they will say, we tried. i will tell you right now, you listen to janet napolitano real good, because i think everybody should be on the phone calling the white house -- get rid of her. she could not keep arizona safe. she cannot keep our borders safe. get rid of her. and i cannot wait until she says, we tried, like the man on a ski trip. they are trying to make like that is no big deal.

if you are a big time ceo of the company and you go, we have trouble at our company, you do not fly home to that company. you go, i am going to stay and ski. something needs to happen. thank you so much for listening to me. everyone needs to check out arizona. see how much damage the janet napolitano did to our state. thank you. host: speaking of "washington journal", tomorrow juan zaratti , who served as the deputy national security adviser and the last four years of the bush administration, will be joining us at 9:15 a.m. eastern on "washington journal". the white house briefing room is where we will hear from former arizona governor janet napolitano and others. that is expected to take place at 5:15 eastern time. during the course of the day,

these things tend to run late. john is joining us from san antonio on the independent line. thank you for joining us. caller: hello? i think the president did a good job with his speech under the circumstances. al qaeda and taliban -- their favorite station is probably c- span and watching american media and watching all politics is going here. from this attack, it was obviously hastily put together. and it is almost like they created this attack -- they knew it would cause a lot of problems with politics in the u.s., and they won. we have not even got into the congressional committees that are all going to be talking about this. i think they were successful, because they know the politics in the u.s. it's out of control right now,

the partisan politics. host: kelly is joining us on the democrats' line from kentucky. caller: i wanted to tell you that i agree with what the president was saying. and i do like to fly on airplanes. if they acted at scanners. in every d -- if they have to have scanners. in e put in every airport, then that is what they should do. i wish they would do something more about these islamic extremists, to keep them from coming over to our country and heard all of us. host: thank you. also on the independent line, patricia from seattle, washington. caller: i was very glad to hear the president's speech.

i believe that everything that is possible will be done and that he will see that it is done. i do not think there is any 100% guaranteed in this world anyhow, but i do believe that we have got the best possible president we could have. and i pray to god that he gets as much support from the people as he deserves. thank you. host: situation between the residence of the white house and the west wing is the white house briefing room where the members of the white house press corps have begun to gather. helen thomas in the front seat. others gathered to hear from all homeland security team to give more details and provide the chance for reporters to ask janet napolitano specifics of what we have heard from the president. one of the headlines that came from the speech is the intelligence community failed to connect the dots. matt is joining us from illinois.

on the republican line. caller: good afternoon. i think no matter what we do, our borders are too wide open. in the future, we will be like other countries where the more people we bring in a from different nationalities, the worse it gets. host: what is the solution? caller: the solution is to tighten up the borders. i know there is a lot of security people that do not do their job. we need to make sure they do their job or get rid of them. you know, that's the only way. nowadays, people need to do their job, no matter who they come in as far as their country. we need to see to it that we can monitor those people and get people to replace them if they cannot do their jobs. host: the republican line, susan from tennessee. caller: one